get_weekly_intensity_minutes

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. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, the scope of aggregation (e.g., across all activities or per day), or any return format details. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about behavior.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key action ('weekly intensity minute aggregation'). It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly expanded to cover param format or usage guidance without becoming lengthy.

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 complexity of a weekly aggregation tool with 2 params and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output contains, how to interpret the data, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have activity data logged). The tool lacks annotations, so the description should provide more completeness about the tool's functionality and results.

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%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the two parameters (end_date, start_date). The description mentions 'two dates start and end' but does not specify format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), required vs optional, or the meaning of the dates relative to each other. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema-level param descriptions.

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 'weekly intensity minute aggregation (requires two dates start and end)', which clearly identifies the resource (intensity minutes) and operation (aggregation) with a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate it from siblings like get_weekly_steps or get_weekly_stress, making it unclear when to use this over similar weekly aggregation tools.

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 implies that two dates are needed but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_weekly_steps or other weekly health tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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