get_weight_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the temporal range and date format, omitting read-only expectations, behavior when 'end' is null, timezone/inclusivity, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core purpose and parameter hints efficiently.

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 simple tool and existence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for calling it, but it omits default/null behavior and provides no guidance distinguishing it from sibling weight tools. These gaps prevent complete self-sufficiency.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does add meaning by mapping 'days' to 'N' and explaining the 'end' parameter format as YYYY-MM-DD. However, it does not explain the defaults (days=7, end=null) or what a null end date means, leaving a 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 identifies a weight-history retrieval tool with a specific temporal scope ('last N days') and a date format for the endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_body_weight or get_weight_goal, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_body_weight, nor any mention of when not to use it. The usage context is only implied by the word 'history', not stated explicitly.

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