health_get_weight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it discloses cache-first behavior, live re-fetch semantics, dependency on health_sync, and sparse weigh-in day coverage. This goes well beyond a simple read-only hint and sets accurate expectations about data availability.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses short, focused paragraphs for caching behavior, sparse data, parameters, and return value shape. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers cache semantics, prerequisites, date formats, output shape, and sparse-data behavior. The output schema exists, but the description still usefully summarizes return fields and one-entry-per-weigh-in behavior, making the tool fully comprehensible.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining start_date and end_date formats, defaults, and the meaning of live. Each parameter's purpose and acceptable values are explicitly documented, making the tool invocable without schema help.

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 gets weight log entries and enumerates the specific data fields (weight, BMI, body fat percentage), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling health tools by focusing on weight log entries versus broader trends or device 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 gives concrete usage context: default cache behavior, live=True for API fetches, the need to run health_sync first, and sparse data expectations. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage guidance is clear and actionable.

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