oura_temperature_shifts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is heuristic and returns the raw series for auditability, which adds useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any limitations (e.g., data availability, permissions). The heuristic disclosure and raw-series return are positive, but the description falls short of fully characterizing behavior.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs and the auditability feature. There is no redundant wording or filler; every clause adds value. The structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's function quickly.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on the return structure, the exact meaning of 'sustained shift', and how the parameters influence the detection. It mentions the flag condition but not the precise algorithm. An agent could invoke the tool with reasonable confidence but would lack full understanding of the expected output and edge cases, making the description moderately complete but not comprehensive.

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 67%: start and end lack descriptions, while the other four parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not clarify start and end beyond their type, nor does it explain how parameters like threshold or confirm_days map to the detection logic. It references baseline mean and elevated phase but does not tie these to the parameters, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('nightly temperature deviation') with a defined purpose: a sustained-shift detector. It enumerates the outputs (baseline mean, shift day, elevated-phase mean, amplitude, duration, flag) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on temperature shifts rather than status, events, or baseline drift. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like oura_baseline_drift or oura_status. It implies usage for detecting temperature shifts, but does not state conditions for selection, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer applicability from the purpose alone, which is weak for a tool with many siblings.

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