resting_hr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet only states that it returns a daily value. It discloses no additional behavioral traits such as input validation, response shape, or any side effects. The phrase 'value for the day' hints at a scalar result but leaves many behavioral aspects unstated.

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, consisting of a single dash-separated phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the metric name followed by clarifying detail, but it is arguably too terse to fully support use.

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 tool has no annotations and a single optional parameter, the description does not provide enough context beyond the basic function. The presence of an output schema is unknown to us but the description alone is insufficient for robust use. It fails to cover likely edge cases or clarify the meaning of the date parameter.

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 description connects the date parameter to a specific day via '当日', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain format, default behavior, or what happens for invalid dates. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 the tool provides the resting heart rate value for a given day, making its core purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling metrics like hr_intraday by specifying '当日' (that day) as the scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name to infer action.

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 usage guidance is provided; the description does not explain when to choose this over alternative health metrics. It only implies it is for daily resting heart rate, but without exclusions or alternatives, an agent has little basis for selection.

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