hrv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions output values. It does not explain what happens when the optional 'date' parameter is provided versus omitted, or whether authentication or permissions are required. The term '当日' (current day) may conflict with the schema allowing a date parameter, creating ambiguity.

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 concise—a single phrase—which is efficient but omits critical details. It earns points for brevity but loses for not providing enough information to stand alone.

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 presence of an output schema, the description's mention of two key outputs (current day and seven-day average) provides a basic understanding. However, missing parameter documentation and lack of behavioral context leaves the agent with an incomplete picture for confident selection and 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 input schema has one optional parameter 'date' with no description, and the tool description adds no information about its meaning, format, or impact on results. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain how to use the parameter.

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 it provides HRV values for the current day and a seven-day average, specifying the resource (HRV) and the output scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like resting_hr or hr_intraday, which focus on heart rate or intraday data. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for other dates or compare with similar 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., resting_hr, user_summary) would be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative.

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