analyze_adherence

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it calculates non-wear time, identifies data gaps, and computes adherence percentage. It adds value beyond the schema by describing the outputs, though it omits details like whether the analysis is read-only or if it requires specific permissions.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the action, the second lists outputs. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but could be slightly more structured by including usage context.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and behavioral details. It lacks usage guidelines but is otherwise complete for an analysis 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description), so the description does not need to add much about parameters. However, it does not mention the 'days' parameter at all, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Analyze' and the specific resource 'how consistently you wear your Oura ring', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It further details what it shows (daily non-wear time, gaps, adherence percentage), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools that focus on other metrics like HRV or sleep.

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 for understanding data quality but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_sleep_quality or detect_anomalies. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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