garmin_recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the operative behavior: it filters to activities above a load threshold and reports RHR/HRV on subsequent days to build a recovery curve. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or how the output scales with the window, but the core mechanics are revealed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by mechanism and then differentiation. Efficient overall, though the marketing line 'This is unique' leans on self-promotion rather than additional routing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return format need not be explained, and the purpose/mechanism are covered. However, for a parameterized tool with no annotations, the entirely undocumented days_after parameter leaves a real gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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 0% and the single parameter days_after has no description. The text refers to 'the following days' but never maps this to days_after, its default of 3, or the units/limits, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource ('analyze how your body recovers after hard training sessions') and even specifies the computation (RHR and HRV for days following activities with training_load > 80). The closing claim of uniqueness tells the agent this is not subsumed by siblings like garmin_hrv or garmin_training_load.

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?

It implies the use case (post-hard-training recovery) and states the internal threshold (training_load > 80), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not name an alternative tool to prefer for adjacent needs. Usage is left to inference.

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