Eight Sleep Nightly Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it computes summary from trend data but does not elaborate on edge cases, error handling, or performance implications. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and immediately provides value proposition. Every word earns its place.

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 description outlines what is computed (best/worst night, mean, counts) but omits details on parameter behavior and response structure despite having an output schema. Given the tool's complexity, more completeness is warranted.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the three parameters (days, timezone, response_format). The meaning, constraints, and impact of these parameters are not addressed, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 explicitly states it computes a multi-night sleep summary with specific metrics (best/worst night, mean score, counts) and distinguishes from sibling get_trends by noting it replaces post-processing. This is a specific verb-resource combination.

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 clearly positions this tool as a replacement for post-processing raw trend data, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives among siblings, though no direct summarization alternatives exist.

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