get_weight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal useful behavior: the default window (~4 weeks) and the effect of include_raw (individual weigh-ins included). It omits auth/permission requirements and any note on data granularity or pagination limits, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences: resource and metrics first, then the optional flag, then the default window. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 simple read tool with zero required params, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned metrics, the flag behavior and the default range. Only minor gaps remain, such as no mention of the date format or whether ranges are inclusive, both of which the schema largely handles.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the same default values quoted in the description. The description essentially restates the include_raw and default-range semantics, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates the exact metrics returned (weight, BMI, body-fat %) plus the raw-entry option, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_daily_health or get_activity. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other health metrics, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and the stated default range ('last ~4 weeks'), which tells the agent this is the weight-tracking read. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or reference to an alternative tool for related body metrics.

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