get_weekly_intensity_minutes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain what is returned (weekly intensity minutes, moderate and vigorous) and the aggregation window. But it omits details such as whether the end_date week is inclusive, how missing data is handled, or any access limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary of what is returned followed by a compact parameter block. There is no filler, and every sentence provides useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the required inputs, format, and constraints. It could clarify the exact week-boundary semantics, but an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well with an Args section: it documents end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), weeks meaning, default (4), and maximum (52). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema properties.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('weekly intensity minutes data aggregates'), and the scope ('moderate and vigorous' for a specified number of weeks ending at end_date). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_weekly_steps or get_weekly_stress.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when weekly moderate/vigorous intensity minutes are needed over a trailing window ending at a given date. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a gap given the large sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.