get_weekly_stress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the time range and the end date format, but omits details such as whether the end date is inclusive, what timezone applies, whether the result is a daily breakdown or aggregate, and whether this is a read-only operation. This is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core fact (stress history) and then the scope ('last 7 days') and parameter format. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. But among many sibling tools that deal with stress or body battery, the description does not explain how this tool differs, nor does it clarify the default behavior of 'end'. For a one-parameter tool, the description is close to adequate but still leaves the null case and sibling boundary unresolved.

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 is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that 'end' is a YYYY-MM-DD date and that the history runs 'up to' that date. However, it does not clarify what happens when 'end' is null (the schema default), nor does it describe whether the period includes the end date or excludes it. The description partially compensates but leaves a notable gap.

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 the tool returns stress history for a weekly window. The name and 'last 7 days' distinguish it from daily stress tools. However, no explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' is present, and it does not differentiate from the similarly named 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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a weekly time range, but it never mentions get_daily_stress, get_body_battery_stress_history, or when this tool is the right choice. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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