body_battery

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

With no annotations provided, the description must self-disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation querying data by date range but offers no details on data format, units, possible null returns, permissions needed, or impact of invalid dates. As a health tool returning potentially sensitive data, this omission is problematic. Score reflects insufficient disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 very short—just one sentence with the Chinese translation and a brief purpose. It is front-loaded with the key concept and avoids fluff. While extremely concise, it sacrifices necessary details, so it earns a 4 rather than 5. Is efficient but incomplete for the reasons cited in other dimensions.

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?

Considering the tool has 2 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It defines what the tool does and its temporal scope, which is helpful, but leaves out parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema partially reduces the burden for return values, but the description still falls short on key aspect for an unannotated tool. Score 3 reflects minimal viability with significant gaps.

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 lists two string parameters (start, end) with no descriptions, types (e.g., date format), or enums, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only says '指定日期范围' (specified date range), providing minimal clarity that start and end likely define a date range. No details on expected format (YYYY-MM-DD? ISO 8601?) or behavior when only one is provided. With zero schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 translates the name 'body_battery' as '身体电量' and states it is for body battery on a current or specified date range. It clearly identifies the resource (body battery) and scope (date range), slightly differentiating from sibling tools that cover other metrics like sleep, stress, or HRV. However, it's vague about what 'body battery' actually represents (e.g., a score, chart, levels), so the purpose is clear but lacks specificity for a health metric.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sleep, stress, or HRV, which are closely related to body battery. With many sibling tools covering overlapping health data, the lack of usage context or selection criteria is a major gap. A score of 2 reflects the absence of any usage guidance.

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