get_daily_stress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the basic behavior: a historical stress lookup bounded by N days and an end date format. However, it does not mention how missing/null end is handled, whether the day count is inclusive, or any quirks around data availability.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the two parameter semantics into a short parenthetical. Every element earns its place.

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 read-only history tool with an output schema, the description covers the main call pattern. However, it does not position this tool relative to siblings like get_weekly_stress or get_body_battery_stress_history, which matters given the large sibling list. Output schema covers return shape, so that omission is less critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'N days' to the days parameter and 'up to end, YYYY-MM-DD' to the end parameter, adding practical meaning beyond the bare schema. It stops short of explaining the default/null behavior fully, but it is still helpful.

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 the resource ('stress history') and the time scope ('last N days'), and the phrase 'period=days' reinforces that this is the daily variant. It is distinguishable from get_weekly_stress, though it does not explicitly contrast with other stress-related siblings like get_body_battery_stress_history.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention get_weekly_stress or other stress/history endpoints, nor does it state exclusions or conditions. The intended usage is only implied by the name and 'period=days'.

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