get_continuous_heart_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavior disclosure. It states the output granularity (5-minute intervals) and a prerequisite, which is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify data availability behavior, error handling, or that the operation is read-only, scoring a 3.

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 consists of two succinct sentences, front-loading the purpose and output format without any redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned and a prerequisite. It is mostly complete, though it could benefit from a brief note on the return structure (e.g., array of objects). Overall, sufficient for the complexity.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds marginal value by explaining the output format (5-minute samples) but does not deepen parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states it retrieves continuous heart rate data and returns 5-minute interval samples, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_continuous_heart_rate_range', which likely operates over a date range, limiting clarity slightly.

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 mentions a prerequisite (heart rate tracking enabled), which provides some usage context. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'get_continuous_heart_rate_range' or when not to use it, leaving the agent with only implied usage.

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