stats_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'trend' and lists metrics, but does not explain what the trend output looks like (e.g., averages, daily values), whether it is read-only, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does (multi-day trend of multiple metrics). It omits details like the format of the trend, but the output schema can fill that gap. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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%. The description adds value by linking 'days' to '近 N 天' (last N days), clarifying the parameter's role. However, it does not explain the range, default, or effect of different values on the output. It meets the minimum compensation but not more.

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 the tool provides a multi-day trend overview of specific metrics (steps, sleep, resting HR, VO2Max, training status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics or single-day snapshots.

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 the tool is for aggregated trend viewing over N days, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or guidance on choosing between this and individual metric tools is provided.

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