get_fasting_history

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 describes the return values but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or any other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by clear, bullet-style parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its parameters. It does not mention error handling or range limits, but for a retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 input schema covers 0% of parameter descriptions, but the description adds format and usage for start_date and end_date (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'omit for all history'), which provides meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Get fasting history from Cronometer' and specifies it returns fasts with status, names, recurrence rules, and timestamps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fasting_stats (stats) and cancel_active_fast (mutation) by focusing on historical data retrieval.

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 usage for retrieving fasting history, optionally within a date range, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as get_fasting_stats or clarify when to omit dates. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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