get_stress_levels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention the role of the 'days' parameter, any default time range, whether the data is read-only, or what 'trends' entails. The description is essentially a purpose statement and lacks behavioral depth.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple read tool, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented optional parameter. The description does not explain how 'days' influences the result, what the response looks like, or any sensible defaults. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 description does not mention the 'days' parameter at all. The only parameter is left completely undocumented, so an agent has no basis to infer its meaning, constraints, or default behavior from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('daily stress averages and trends'), and the data source ('Garmin Connect'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_heart_rate_trends or get_week_review.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what context it is appropriate for. The description only states what it returns; there are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools that might be more suitable for related queries.

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