compression_low_analysis

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 clearly conveys a non-mutating analysis behavior, discloses the heuristic nature ('probable'), and explains the pattern criteria used. It does not describe the output shape or limitations, but there are no destructive or auth-related traits suggested.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and definition are front-loaded, and each listed pattern contributes meaningful detail without 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?

For a tool with a single optional, well-documented parameter, the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit return-format information, but this is minor given the low complexity and clear detection purpose.

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 only parameter, days, is already fully documented in the schema with type, range, and default. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Detect probable compression lows') and defines what that means: false low readings caused by lying on the CGM sensor. It lists characteristic identifying patterns and explicitly distinguishes the tool's purpose from real lows, making it clearly distinct from generic siblings like detect_patterns.

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 the use case: investigating suspicious low readings, especially during sleep, with quick recovery and no treatment. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternatives like overnight_analysis or detect_patterns.

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