vo2max

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic fallback to recent 7 days, which is key behavioral information. However, it omits other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the estimate is based on specific activity types.

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 front-loads the key concept (最大摄氧量) and immediately adds the fallback rule. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though the localization might reduce clarity for non-Chinese readers.

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 optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple GET operation. However, it lacks guidance on parameter format and usage context, which are needed for an agent to invoke it without ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'date' parameter refers to the requested day and fallback behavior, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), whether null means today, or any constraints. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to supply the parameter correctly.

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 specifies the resource (VO2Max) and the action (估値/estimate), and adds the auto-backtrack behavior for the last 7 days when no data exists. This distinguishes it from sibling health metric tools like resting_hr, hrv, etc., making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (training_status, fitnessage data, etc.), the agent receives no help in deciding when vo2max is the right choice or what prerequisites (e.g., device data) might be needed.

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