get_stress

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

With no annotations, the description provides moderate behavioral insight: it explains the output includes average, highest, and a stress-level split. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., no data for a day), required permissions, or any side effects. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two sentences of purpose followed by a minimal args section. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean.

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 single parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool returns (average, highest, split) and how to specify the day. It lacks handling of edge cases (e.g., missing data, invalid date formats) but is mostly complete for a straightforward read tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'day', but the description adds concrete examples ('today', 'yesterday', '2026-08-18'), clarifying the expected format. This compensates well, though additional details like timezone handling or date range restrictions would elevate it further.

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 what the tool does: it returns stress levels for a given day, including average, highest, and the split between rest, low, medium, and high stress. The verb 'get' with the resource 'stress levels' is specific, and the output details distinguish it from sibling tools like get_hrv or get_body_battery.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description explains the day parameter, it does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., requires a wearable device), or situations where this tool is preferable over other health metric tools.

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