Pull wearable context

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: it never fabricates data, and if no context exists it returns available:false with the expected path. This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and tie-ins to sibling tools. No unnecessary words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it reads, where from, when to use it, safety (read-only), error handling (available:false), and integration with sibling tools. It is complete.

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 only parameter (response_format) is not described in the tool description, despite 0% schema description coverage. However, it is a simple enum with clear values in the schema, and the tool works fine without specifying it. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the param is trivial.

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 shared wellness_context from a specific location, using an active verb and explicitly defining the resource. It also implies its role in enabling coach tools to be recovery/strain-aware without passing data inline, which differentiates it from siblings like nourish_daily_coach.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to make coach tools aware of wearable data without passing it inline) and notes an alternative (setting auto_wearable:true on related tools). It also clarifies that it is read-only and never fabricates data, providing clear usage context.

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