spo2

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

Annotations are missing entirely, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether data availability depends on device support, what happens if no data exists for the date, or any rate limits. 'Retrieves current day' implies fresh data, but no context about real-time vs historical.

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?

Single short sentence; no wasted words. However, while concise, it lacks clarity and completeness. The use of Chinese '当日' without English translation reduces accessibility for English-prompting agents. A slightly longer but clearer sentence would be more effective.

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?

With no annotations, a 1-param schema (0% coverage), no behavior disclosure, and an output schema present but no description of what it returns, the tool is underdocumented. The agent cannot confidently determine data format, units (percentage), or error handling from the description alone.

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 has 1 parameter (date) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the date parameter at all—its format (YYYY-MM-DD?), default behavior (today if omitted?), or relationship to '当日'. For a single-optional-parameter tool, the description should clearly document that omitting date returns today's data.

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?

Tool name is 'spo2' but description uses Chinese to indicate it retrieves SpO2 data for the current day. This clarifies the resource (blood oxygen saturation) and scope (当日, i.e., current date). However, '当日' is ambiguous—does it mean today or the date passed in the parameter? Also, the tool title is null, so the description is the sole source of purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like hrv, respiration, resting_hr, but not explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool vs others like hrv, respiration, or resting_hr. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., requires a device that measures SpO2), or alternative tools for other time ranges or aggregated data. The description simply states the data is for '当日' without clarifying if the date parameter overrides this.

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