get_hrv_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data returned and the tier-aware behavior for windows beyond 30 days. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, listing outputs, and noting a technical detail. No extraneous words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: what is returned, the parameter's meaning, and a note on data aggregation for longer windows. It does not repeat return format details since an output schema is present.

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?

The single parameter 'days' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning 'past N days' and 'windows beyond 30 days', helping the agent understand the parameter's effect and the scaling behavior.

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 specifies the verb 'get trend', the resource 'HRV (SDNN)', and the scope 'past N days'. It lists the returned components: daily averages, 7-day rolling comparison, trend direction. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_long_term_trend or query_metric.

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 HRV trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_long_term_trend or get_metric_stats. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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