get_recovery_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states what metrics are combined but does not disclose default weighting behavior, whether the weights are optional, whether the operation is read-only, or what the training recommendation contains.

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-loads the core computation and output. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It omits important invocation details such as what happens when no weights are supplied, how the recovery score is scaled, and what the training recommendation looks like.

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%, and the parameter names already reveal the four metrics. The description adds only that these are combined, without explaining weight semantics, valid ranges, defaults, or whether calling with no parameters is meaningful.

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 uses a specific verb ('Combines') and clearly identifies the resource: HRV, sleep, stress, and resting heart rate produce a recovery score and training recommendation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sleep_data or get_stress_levels, which return individual data streams.

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 use when an aggregate recovery assessment is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over overlapping siblings like get_training_insights or get_week_review. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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