get_recovery_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the aggregation behavior, the inclusion of a latest-day snapshot, and the explicit absence of day-by-day output. It does not discuss data-source assumptions or edge cases, but the core non-obvious behavior is stated.

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 deliver the result shape, the intended use case, and the critical scope exclusion. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information appears first.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the aggregate result, the window, and the non-aggregate exclusion. Naming sibling alternatives or caveats such as timezone handling would improve it further.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes period_days as 'Window length in days.' The description adds only the semantic link that N controls the aggregation window and latest snapshot, which is marginal value beyond the schema. Thus the baseline 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 states the exact metrics covered (sleep, HRV, resting HR, stress, Body Battery, steps) and the precise output form: averages over N days plus a latest-day snapshot. It also explicitly contrasts itself with a day-by-day list, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_daily_metrics or get_trend.

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?

It provides a clear trigger phrase ('how has my recovery been?') and a clear exclusion ('never a day-by-day list'). However, it does not name any sibling tool explicitly as the alternative for day-level detail, so an agent must infer which sibling to use instead.

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