get_health_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes the full burden. It lists what metrics are returned but does not disclose behavior for missing data, edge cases, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). No contradictions.

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 two sentences and directly states the purpose and returned metrics. It is concise but could be structured slightly better (e.g., listing metrics in a clearer format).

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers the return values. It also differentiates from the many sibling tools. However, it could mention use cases or limitations for completeness.

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 explain the 'days' parameter. It indicates 'past N days', which adds context beyond the schema, but lacks details like inclusivity or date range formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns an overview of key health metrics (avg steps, sleep, HRV, resting HR, workout count) for the past N days. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics or comparisons.

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 usage for getting a broad summary, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_sleep or get_workouts. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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