garmin_stress

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only aggregation ('shows how many hours per day') and the output content, but says nothing about the default 14-day window, data freshness, or any limits. Because an output schema exists, the explicit list of returned fields is largely redundant with structured data.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the zone breakdown leads, and the supporting sentence adds scope detail without padding. The line breaks are cosmetic but harmless; no sentence is wasted beyond the redundant return-value recap.

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 output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: the agent knows what data comes back. It falls short on the undocumented `days` parameter and on any usage context relative to the many sibling wellness tools.

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 `days` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does not. 'Per day' hints at daily granularity but the parameter's meaning, its default of 14, and valid ranges are never explained.

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 gives a specific verb-free but clear resource statement — stress data with a time-in-zone (low/medium/high) breakdown — which distinguishes it from siblings like garmin_heart_rate or garmin_body_battery. However, it never names or contrasts against those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus garmin_today, garmin_health_summary, garmin_recovery, or other wellness tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named. The agent must infer usage entirely from the title.

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