get_daily_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic function and does not disclose traits like read-only nature, data source, or limits. This is a minimal disclosure, but it does not contradict any annotations. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete transparency.

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 sentence, 10 words, with no fluff. It front-loads the key information. While it is concise, it could benefit from a bit more context (e.g., output hints) without becoming verbose. Thus, a score of 4 for efficiency with room for slight improvement.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what the summary contains (e.g., aggregated metrics). It does not. The input is well-covered by the schema. The sibling tools suggest this is a broad summary, but agents may need to know the return structure to interpret results. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete context for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'date', 'start_date', 'end_date', 'timezone' with formats and defaults). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema alone is sufficient for understanding parameters.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('daily activity summary') with a scope ('for a date or date range'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_connection_status' or 'query_heart_rate', which are more specific or unrelated. However, it could be more specific about what the summary includes (e.g., steps, calories), which is left ambiguous.

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 usage by mentioning a date or date range, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it could state that this tool provides an aggregated summary while specific metrics are handled by 'query_*' tools. Without such guidance, the agent may misuse the tool.

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