get_hrv_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is retrieved ('HRV data in milliseconds') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, data freshness, or whether this is a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what format the HRV data is returned in (e.g., time series, aggregated values), how it's structured, or any limitations (e.g., historical data availability). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'days' fully documented in the schema (including type, description, and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not additive value.

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 ('Heart Rate Variability (HRV) data in milliseconds'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_heart_rate' or 'get_stress_levels' which might provide related physiological data, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_heart_rate' or 'get_stress_levels'. The description lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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