get_intensity_minutes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a per-day read with weekly goal progress and that the date defaults to today, but it does not mention data availability, timezone handling, or other behavioral edge cases. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The key output is stated first and the parameter detail is secondary.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient to call it correctly. It lacks only broader usage/behavior context, which is already penalized in other dimensions.

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 single parameter is fully compensated: the description specifies YYYY-MM-DD format and clarifies that the null/default schema value resolves to today. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource as moderate and vigorous intensity minutes for a day plus weekly goal progress, which is distinct from the many sibling metric tools. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like get_daily_summary, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling get_* tools, and no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned. The only implied usage is the metric name itself.

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