delta_hr

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. It does disclose that ascent and descent are not comparable and that tau is excluded, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether there are side effects, or other operational constraints.

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 short and front-loads the metric definition before the caveats. However, the repeated '§6.3' references are opaque to an agent that lacks the referenced specification, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, so the description needs to compensate substantially. It provides metric context and two important caveats, but it omits parameter semantics and when-to-use guidance, leaving the definition incomplete for invocation.

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?

There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them beyond a vague reference to 'direction' and 'selection.' Key parameters such as last_n, cluster, start_date, end_date, run_type, and segment_id are left completely undocumented in both the schema and 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 identifies a specific metric: HR excursion across an effort, broken out by direction and constrained to a selection. It is clear enough to distinguish this from generic metrics tools, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as segment_effort_drift or matched_terrain_drift.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-adjacent information is a caveat that ascent and descent are not comparable and that tau is never returned, which is interpretation guidance rather than selection guidance.

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