get_body_measurements

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden. It discloses date parsing behavior, timezone handling, and unit semantics (mass conversion, null for circumference). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or overall read-only nature, but the verb 'get' implies safety.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first covers purpose with examples, the second adds critical data format details. No superfluous content.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains expected fields (weight, body fat, etc.) and unit behavior. It also clarifies date handling. Missing details on sorting or pagination, but sufficient for a history retrieval tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining date formats and unit behavior in returned data, but does not provide additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema says.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves body measurement history with examples (weight, body fat percentage). The tool name and description align, and it is distinct from sibling tools which focus on other domains like workouts or nutrition.

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 implies usage for fetching historical body measurements but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workout_history or get_nutrition_log. No when-not or prerequisites are mentioned.

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