garmin_hrv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'gets raw private HRV data' but does not explain what 'raw' entails, whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., for invalid or missing dates).

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 low parameter count (1) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspect of the date format and the data type. However, it could benefit from clarifying whether 'private' implies access restrictions or data sensitivity, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 format constraint ('YYYY-MM-DD') for the 'day' parameter, which is useful. However, it does not explain the behavior when the parameter is null (default) or any other constraints like date range or timezone. This partial addition is adequate but not fully compensating.

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 states 'Get raw private HRV data' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the required date format. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like garmin_heart_rate, the mention of 'private HRV' and 'raw' makes the purpose specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. It only states what it does without any context for appropriate usage.

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