get_weight_history

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool returns recorded body weight with a computed change metric, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention safety (e.g., read-only nature), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the period is invalid. The output format is left to the output schema.

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: one sentence for the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter description with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the parameter and the high-level return value (weight history with change). It does not cover edge cases or limitations, but given the low complexity and presence of output schema, it is nearly complete.

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 input schema only provides a title and default for `period`. The description adds concrete examples ('last 30 days', 'this month', '2026-01-01 to 2026-08-18') and hints at allowed formats (relative phrases or absolute dates). Given 0% schema description coverage, this significantly enhances understanding.

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 states 'Recorded body weight over a period, with the change from first to last,' clearly specifying the verb (get/retrieve) and resource (body weight history) including a specific metric (change). It is distinct from sibling tools like `log_weight` (logging) and `get_daily_summary` (aggregate data), but does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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. For example, when to prefer `get_weight_history` over `get_daily_summary` or `log_weight` is not mentioned. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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