get_body_battery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and mentions the data range (0-100), but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness/latency, error conditions, or what format the data returns. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. The parenthetical explanation efficiently adds context about what Body Battery represents without bloating the description. Every element serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter retrieval), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about behavior, usage scenarios, and return format. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in guiding effective tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'days' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides about the days parameter. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('Body Battery data'), with a brief parenthetical explanation of what Body Battery represents. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this particular Garmin metric rather than other data types like activities or heart rate. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools beyond the metric name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to sibling tools like get_summary or get_hrv_data that might provide overlapping or complementary recovery metrics.

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