get_sleep_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a summary and quality indicator, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential absence of data, date range limitations, or any safety/privacy considerations. The return format is partially specified.

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 compact: two sentences covering the data fields and the quality indicator. Each listed item adds meaning, though the first sentence is a bit dense with list-like structure. Efficient overall.

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 read tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description lists the key return fields and quality categories. It does not specify exact output format or edge cases, but for a sleep analysis tool, it provides sufficient context. Minor gaps exist in describing error behavior or data availability.

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%, with the single 'date' parameter fully described (format and default). The tool description adds high-level context about the data returned but does not elaborate on parameter behavior beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'sleep data', listing concrete data elements (sleep score, duration, efficiency, stages, cycles, quality). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on recovery, temperature, metrics, summary, heart vitals, and activity.

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 use when sleep analysis is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_daily_metrics or get_health_summary. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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