daily_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether data is aggregated or raw, any authentication requirements, or return format. The tool returns daily steps for a range, but traits like pagination, data granularity, or performance limits are omitted. This leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 extremely brief, at just one phrase. While it is concise, it is overly terse and lacks important context. It front-loads the resource name but does not earn its place fully because it omits critical usage and parameter details. A 3 reflects that it is minimally adequate but too sparse for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 there is an output schema but no annotations, and the tool has 2 untyped parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but description says nothing), nor does it provide usage context. For a health tracking tool among many siblings, a more thorough description is needed.

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 has two parameters ('start', 'end') with 0% description coverage. The description mentions '指定日期范围' (specified date range) which implies these are dates, but does not state format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), default values, or whether they are inclusive. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful details beyond vague date range context.

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 '每日步数 — 指定日期范围的每日步数' which means 'Daily steps — daily steps for a specified date range.' This clearly identifies the resource (daily steps) and the action (retrieve). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'steps_data', 'get_weekly_steps', which also provide step data. The lack of sibling differentiation prevents a higher score.

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 'steps_data' or 'get_weekly_steps'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name, which is insufficient for correct selection among many sibling tools.

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