polar_list_sleep

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds that the tool 'always returns' specific fields, which is informative but does not go beyond what annotations already imply. No contradictory behavior is described.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and lists key output details without unnecessary fluff. Excellent structure.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what the response will contain (sleep score, duration, stages, heart rate stats, architecture summary). It does not mention pagination, errors, or limits, but these are not essential for a simple read-only list operation. Overall, the description provides adequate context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (date range and format). The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves, but it does explain the output content, which indirectly aids parameter understanding. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists sleep records and specifies the included data (sleep score, duration, stages, heart rate stats, architecture summary). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like polar_list_nightly_recharge or polar_get_sleepwise, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that would make it the preferred choice. It simply describes what it does, with no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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