get_hrv

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'Returns' make the read-only nature clear, and the description discloses the returned fields and enforces the date format. It does not cover edge cases like missing data, but that is minor for a simple getter.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the return-fields sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With one required parameter, an output schema, and a low-complexity read operation, the description is nearly complete. It provides date format and return fields, though it omits context about measurement window or data availability; that does not block correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies that the parameter is the target date for HRV. With only one self-explanatory parameter, this is sufficient compensation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' with explicit resource 'Heart Rate Variability (HRV) data' and a date scope. It also names return fields (status, weekly average, baseline), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_heart_rate or get_daily_summary.

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 implies usage when HRV data for a specific date is needed, but it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are stated.

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