get_floors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output covers floors climbed and descended with an intraday timeline, and mentions the date parameter defaults to today, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the data is real-time, the granularity of the timeline, or potential limitations, leaving some ambiguity. No contradictions with annotations since none are provided.

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 succinct: two sentences that convey the purpose and the only parameter. It is front-loaded with the main functionality, and every sentence provides necessary information. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema that likely describes the return structure, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns (floors climbed/descended, intraday timeline) and the parameter. However, it lacks context on typical use cases or any caveats about the data, but these are minor for such a straightforward tool.

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 schema alone does not explain the parameter's meaning. The description clarifies the date is in YYYY-MM-DD format and defaults to today, which adds value. However, it doesn't elaborate on the format's specifics (e.g., timezone handling) or any constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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 action: retrieving floors climbed and descended for a day, with an intraday timeline. This clearly distinguishes it from other sibling tools that focus on steps, heart rate, or other metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it complements or differs from, but the resource is specific enough.

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 for querying daily floor data with an optional date, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, such as get_steps_and_calories or get_daily_summary. It provides a default for the date parameter, which gives some context, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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