get_stress

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reasonably implies a read-only operation and states what is returned, but it does not mention edge-case behavior such as missing data, timezone interpretation, or any access constraints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a useful summary of return contents. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 single-parameter, simple read tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the date is formatted, and the expected return categories are named. It does not add speculative caveats, which is appropriate at this complexity level.

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?

The input schema only says the 'date' parameter is a string; the description adds the required format 'YYYY-MM-DD', which is essential for correct invocation. With 0% schema coverage, this extra guidance meaningfully compensates for the schema's silence.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all-day stress data' for a date. It also names concrete outputs (stress levels, average stress, stress duration breakdown), making it clearly distinct from sibling metric tools like get_hrv, get_sleep, or get_body_battery.

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 use case is clear: call this when you need all-day stress data for a specific date. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the siblings cover different health metrics, so there is little ambiguity about when to use it.

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