get_health_summary

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 says 'Get' and 'existing', which suggests a read-only operation but does not disclose whether it reflects real-time data, how recent it is, whether it triggers computation, or any rate limits or authentication needs. The term 'existing' hints that it may return stale data but leaves ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that focuses on the core action and output. It avoids unnecessary words and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, which reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description does not clarify what 'multi-metric health analysis' includes or how it relates to the sibling tools. Given the potential for ambiguity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks enough context to be fully self-contained.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. The parameter has an enum of allowed values (14, 7, 3, 1) and a default of 7, but without any explanation in the description, the user must infer that 'days' controls the time window. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('existing multi-metric health analysis'), and specifies the output format ('structured JSON'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single metrics (e.g., heart rate, steps), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 'existing multi-metric health analysis' implies this tool is for retrieving a precomputed aggregate summary, as opposed to the single-metric siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria, leaving the usage context only vaguely implied.

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