get_progress_summary_between_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only says 'progress summary' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it aggregates data, returns percentages or raw values, handles missing dates, or if it requires authentication or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that aggregates data.

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, short sentence. It is concise, but it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity. The structure is front-loaded with the key concept 'progress summary.'

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks sufficient context about what 'progress summary' means (e.g., trend, percentage, difference). With no behavioral transparency or parameter guidance, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'two dates' and 'metric' but does not specify the format of start_date and end_date, the allowed values for metric (beyond a default of 'steps'), or what happens if dates are null. With 3 parameters and no enums, the description adds minimal meaning.

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 '进度摘要' (progress summary) implies a summary of progress, but the specific verb 'get' is clear and the resource 'progress summary between dates' is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools, many of which also deal with health metrics over time. A score of 3 reflects a vague but not misleading purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the over 40 sibling tools, many of which likely track similar metrics (e.g., daily_steps, weekly_steps, stats_trend). The description does not provide any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships to other tools.

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