health_export_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It indicates the return content (metrics, date ranges, sample data) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how files are accessed, or potential costs/limits. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but this is not explicit, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and the resource ('available metrics, date ranges, and sample data'). It is concise with no wasted words, fully matching the tool's purpose.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the main return content. However, it lacks contextual cues such as when to call this tool before making queries or reports, and the description alone does not fully explain how the returned sample data relates to actual query operations. This leaves the tool's place in the workflow somewhat vague.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what information the tool exposes (metrics, date ranges, sample data), which helps the agent understand the tool's utility beyond the empty schema. However, it does not need to describe parameters since there are none.

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 retrieves available metrics, date ranges, and sample data from health export files. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like health_export_query or health_export_report, which likely focus on querying or reporting actual data rather than schema metadata.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions perior alternatives, despite there being several sibling tools with overlapping names like health_export_metrics and health_export_get_metrics. An agent would not know whether to call this first for discovery or for something else.

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