get_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: the series is 'capped at 60 points' and a finer interval over a long window is 'widened automatically rather than making hundreds of requests.' This goes beyond basic functionality and helps the agent understand rate-limit avoidance and auto-adjustment.

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 concise, well-structured, and every sentence adds value. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then lists each parameter in a readable format with defaults and constraints. No wasteful phrases.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and key behavioral caveats. However, it does not describe the output shape of the time series, which would be helpful given there is no output schema. Still, it is reasonably complete for a simple read tool with no annotations.

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 fully compensates. It lists allowed values for 'metric', explains 'weeks' with default and max, and explains 'sample_days' with default and the 60-point cap rationale. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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's purpose: 'Time series of a daily health metric to answer how am I trending?' This is a specific verb (return time series) and resource (daily health metric trends). It lists the exact allowed metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual activities or recovery.

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 when to use this tool by framing it around answering 'how am I trending?' and is distinct from siblings like get_activity or get_recovery. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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