garmin_hrv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It names the returned data categories, which implies a read-only retrieval of HRV metrics, but it does not disclose what happens for missing dates, how date affects weekly/baseline values, or timezone considerations.

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 with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, identifying the metric and its key output components.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema present, this description is largely sufficient. It names the metric categories, and the schema covers the date parameter. The only notable gap is lack of usage guidance, but that is addressed under usage_guidelines.

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 100%, and the date parameter already includes format and default behavior in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 HRV as the resource and lists the exact fields returned: overnight status, last-night average, weekly average, and personal baseline. It distinguishes garmin_hrv from sibling tools like garmin_heart_rate or garmin_stress, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is only for HRV data and not for related metrics like recovery or training readiness.

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