Pull wearable context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds transparency beyond annotations by stating 'Read-only; never fabricates wearable data' and describing the behavior when no context is persisted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main action. Each sentence adds essential information: what it does, its safety, and how results are used. No unnecessary words.

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 (read-only, no required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and integration points. However, it could be improved by detailing the return structure beyond 'returns available:false' and the fact that it can be passed to other tools.

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 has descriptions for both parameters, achieving high schema coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool reads the most recent wellness_context from a specific path, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('shared wellness_context'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining it provides context for coach tools, avoiding the need for agents to pass data inline.

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 explains when to use it (to get wearable context for coach tools) and what happens if no context exists (returns available:false). It also mentions alternatives (auto_wearable:true on coach tools). However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where it should not be used.

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