get_recovery

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the data content but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has any latency or prerequisites, or any other behavioral traits. A simple getter like this would benefit from a statement about it being a read-only snapshot.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase that directly names the resource and its key components. Every word adds value, with no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately identifies the resource and enumerates the main data points. It could optionally clarify that it returns only the current state, but the tool's simplicity makes the description sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% with empty properties. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description is not required to compensate; per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 identifies the specific resource (recovery state) and lists its components (readiness, HRV, sleep, body battery, and status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sleep and get_fitness. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'Gets', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. The description simply states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any exclusions or alternatives.

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