get_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns daily all-day stress levels and stress duration buckets, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain what 'stress duration buckets' mean, whether there are any side effects, or any time-related nuances like timezone handling.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. 'Daily all-day' is slightly redundant, and the phrase lacks a verb, but overall it is appropriately short and front-loaded with the key term 'stress'.

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 tool is simple, but the description fails to provide enough context for the meaning of 'stress duration buckets' or how the 'days' parameter works. Given the presence of many sibling tools, it does not help the agent decide when to select this tool over others. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves gaps in parameter semantics and usage context.

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 includes one optional parameter 'days' with a default of 7, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'Daily' which hints that the parameter likely controls the number of days of data, but it never explicitly explains the parameter's meaning or format. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it only indirectly relates to the parameter.

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 identifies the resource (stress) and the scope (daily all-day levels, duration buckets), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_recovery and get_sleep. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns', instead using a noun phrase.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools for related metrics (recovery, sleep, activities), it does not mention when stress data is needed or when other tools would be more appropriate, nor does it note any exclusions.

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