get_hrv_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, whether authentication is required, or if the data is from the latest sync. The limited text fails to disclose important behavioral context beyond the basic data return.

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 that front-loades the key output ('Current HRV status') and succinctly lists all return components. No redundant words or extraneous information; every word 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the main return values. It mentions three key data types (status, baseline, readings). However, it lacks details on how to interpret the status or baseline, and does not confirm if the output schema includes additional fields. But with low complexity, this is sufficient.

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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (current status, baseline, last 7 nights), which is not obvious from the empty schema. It provides meaningful context beyond the schema structure.

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 explicitly states the resource (HRV status) and the specific data returned (current status, baseline range, last 7 nights). The verb is implied by the tool name 'get'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sleep or get_stress, which cover other health metrics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists what data is returned, without context on scenarios (e.g., checking readiness or recovery) or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring). Sibling tools exist for related metrics, but no comparison is made.

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