garmin_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the composite, aggregating nature via 'Composite recovery view' and lists the included metrics, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not address data availability, potential nulls, or how the date parameter affects the view.

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 front-loads the core concept and then lists the specific metrics. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough core content by naming the composite view and its components. It lacks guidance on sibling tool relationships, but the output schema presumably covers return structure, so the definition is largely 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 coverage for the single 'date' parameter is 100% and its description already specifies the ISO format and default. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as a 'composite recovery view' and enumerates five specific metrics (sleep score, HRV status, resting HR, Body Battery, stress), making it clear what the tool returns. It differentiates from individual-metric sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 word 'composite' implies using this tool when multiple recovery metrics are needed at once, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives like garmin_today or garmin_training_readiness. There are no exclusions or direct comparisons.

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