get_health_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. The verb 'get' and the word 'summaries' indicate a read-only operation and the scope of data, but the description does not disclose behavior around missing health data, the meaning of the surrounding window, or any rate/consistency expectations.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action and resource, and adds a relevant list of health metrics without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers the central intent and the health metrics reasonably well. It still leaves the exact day-range behavior and data-availability edge cases to inference, but these are not severe omissions given the schemas and defaults.

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% and the description does not explicitly explain activity_id, days_before, or days_after. However, 'around an activity' adds some meaning to the before/after window and the default values in the schema are reasonably self-explanatory, so it is more than a tautology but still not a full parameter explanation.

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 the verb 'get' and the specific resource: 'daily health summaries around an activity', and lists the included health indicators (sleep, HRV, stress, heart rate, SpO2). This makes it distinct from several siblings like get_activity_track or get_activity_environment, though it does not explicitly name a sibling within the text.

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 phrase 'around an activity' provides a plausible context for when to use the tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. There is no mention of when to choose this over get_activity_summary or get_activity_samples, so the decision is left to inference.

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