withings_trends

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-sync behavior on stale cache and explains that the 'compare' parameter overrides others. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or non-destructive nature, it implies no side effects beyond cache refresh. A minor gap but still informative.

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 well-structured with clear sections (summary, args, returns, exclusion). While a bit lengthy, it is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema (which explains returns), the description provides complete context: explains return values per data type, cache sync behavior, and parameter interactions. No gaps.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers all 5 parameters with options, formats, defaults, and interactions (e.g., compare overrides others). Examples are provided, making it very clear.

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 it analyzes trends in cached health data, specifying it computes averages, min/max, and changes over time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Not for raw data -- use withings_get_body/sleep/activity instead,' fulfilling the specific verb+resource+scope requirement.

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 explicitly says when to use (trend analysis on cached data) and when not to use (raw data), naming alternatives. It also notes auto-syncs if cache is stale, providing clear context and exclusions.

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