Oura Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context by explicitly stating the tool does not reveal secret values, which goes beyond what annotations provide and reassures the agent about data safety.

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, pithy sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the main action and outputs, containing no extraneous information.

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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers the categories of information returned (privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence) and differentiates from sibling tools. However, it lacks explanation of what 'local privacy' or 'token-path' specifically entails, which might require agent inference.

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 0% because the single parameter 'response_format' has no description in the schema. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain how it affects output (e.g., choosing between markdown and json). The parameter has an enum and default, but the description adds no value, leaving the agent to infer.

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 returns local privacy, cache, token-path, and env-presence posture, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oura_cache_status or oura_connection_status by focusing on a privacy audit that does not reveal secrets.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. While its purpose is clear, it lacks instructions on when to choose privacy audit over other status or cache tools, leaving usage implied.

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