garmin_hrv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (baseline range, balanced/unbalanced streak, trend, above/below baseline), which is useful output behavior. It does not describe permissions, data freshness, read-only nature, or other operational traits, so it remains only partially complete.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It first names and contextualizes the resource, then explains the specific value over raw HRV numbers without filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the main purpose and output semantics well. It still omits any explanation of the 'days' parameter and gives no operational context, so an agent lacks a complete picture of how to invoke it meaningfully.

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 single parameter 'days' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The schema supplies a name, integer type, and default of 30, but neither the schema nor the description explains whether it is a lookback window, a comparison window, or how it affects the returned baseline and trend calculations. The description therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the specific resource (HRV) and spells out the distinctive outputs: personal baseline range, consecutive BALANCED/UNBALANCED days, trend direction, and above/below-baseline status. It distinguishes itself from raw HRV numbers, but does not name specific sibling tools such as garmin_heart_rate or garmin_recovery, so sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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 contrast with 'raw HRV numbers' implies this tool should be used when clinical interpretation and baselines matter rather than raw values. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tool among the many Garmin siblings, leaving usage context only implied.

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