get_health_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers key behaviors: it returns records, uses ISO 8601 timestamps with local timezone handling for naive timestamps, and limits the window to seven days with bounded, pageable results. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but as a get operation, it is implied. The description sufficiently discloses potential pitfalls like timezone handling and pagination.

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 five sentences, each adding essential information: core purpose, intended usage, timezone handling, window limit, and pagination. No extraneous words, well front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered), the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, timezone behavior, window constraints, and pagination. The only gap is the lack of explanation for the data_types parameter, which could affect agent decision-making. Overall, it is quite complete for a tool of moderate 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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains start_time and end_time as forming an ISO 8601 time window and mentions naive timestamp handling, which adds meaning. However, it does not describe data_types (nullable array of strings), limit, or offset, leaving their semantics entirely to schema defaults. This partial explanation results in a baseline score of 3 for low coverage.

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 'Return detailed records overlapping an exact ISO 8601 time window', which specifies the verb and resource. The context for correlations with other timestamped tools further clarifies its purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_daily_health_facts which are for daily aggregates.

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 explicit use cases: 'correlations with calendar events, workouts, sleep periods, and other timestamped tools'. It also mentions constraints: maximum window of seven days and pagination. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, the context is strong enough for an AI to infer appropriate usage.

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