user_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists metrics included and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a presumably safe read operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 a single optional parameter and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on the date parameter's role and does not fully differentiate from the numerous sibling tools. It is complete only for a very basic understanding.

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% and the description does not explain the 'date' parameter. While '每日' (daily) hints at a date context, it does not specify format, default behavior (null likely means today), or allowed values. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a daily summary of steps, heart rate, stress, VO2Max, training load, etc. This is a specific verb+resource combination ('用户每日摘要' = user daily summary) and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.

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 use for a composite overview of multiple metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like calling individual metric tools (e.g., steps_data, stress, vo2max). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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