get_health_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that NULL fields mean the watch didn't record and instructs the agent not to guess. It also reveals the round summary behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention read-only, but that is implied by the context.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, the metric list is compact, and the NULL handling instruction is actionable. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 only 2 optional params and an output schema, the description covers key functionality, round_id special case, and data-missing handling. A small gap is the exact interaction of date and round_id together, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only health data tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the effect of round_id (adds round summary). It does not clarify behavior when both parameters are provided, but the core usage is clear.

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 tool retrieves health context for a round or date, listing all specific metrics (sleep, HRV, Body Battery, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_status or sync_garmin_data by focusing on round/date correlation and concrete health data.

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: use with a date or a round_id to get health context. It clarifies that round_id also returns round summary, giving a hint about when to choose it over date. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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