measurements_list_height

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation already implied by the tool name. It does not mention read-only behavior, default limits, filtering semantics, ordering, or pagination, offering no meaningful behavioral context beyond 'list'.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or unnecessary repetition. It is efficient, though so terse that it misses the opportunity to provide helpful usage context without adding structural waste.

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 simple list tool with four optional parameters that are fully documented in the schema and an output schema present, the minimal description is nearly adequate. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling measurement list tools or explain how scoping filters like child_id or date should be used, leaving a moderate gap in context.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents all four parameters.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('height measurements'), so an agent can tell it is a retrieval operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like measurements_list_weight or measurements_list_bmi, though the resource name supplies that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than create/update/delete height tools or other measurement list tools. The description does not mention relevant use cases, such as retrieving measurements for a specific child or date, so the agent must infer appropriate usage from the name and schema.

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