get_resilience_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Get resilience data', which suggests a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'resilience data' entails (e.g., format, size, or whether it's aggregated). The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter formats but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, errors) and output specifics (e.g., what 'Dictionary containing resilience data' includes). For a data retrieval tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 adds meaning by specifying that start_date and end_date are in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD), which clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't explain constraints like date ordering or inclusivity, leaving some gaps.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'resilience data' with the scope 'for a specific date range'. It distinguishes from 'get_today_resilience_data' by specifying date range filtering, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'get_readiness_data' or 'get_sleep_data' beyond the resource name.

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 when resilience data for a date range is needed, with the date parameters indicating the required context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_today_resilience_data' (for today's data) or other sibling tools for different data types, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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