oura_revisar

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states that the tool does NOT return the token or any health value, and that it only reports the token length. It also explains the reasoning behind this safety behavior, which is highly informative for an AI agent.

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 concise and front-loaded: it leads with the diagnostic purpose and the safety guarantee, then adds a brief explanatory note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the core aspects: what it checks, what it returns (length), and what it avoids returning. It doesn't detail the exact response format, but for such a simple tool this is acceptable. It contextualizes the tool well within a chat/issue-sharing environment.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information because none is needed. The description is sufficient.

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's purpose: it is a self-diagnostic that checks whether the Oura token exists and whether Oura responds. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on diagnosis rather than data access.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for quick verification that the token is set and Oura is reachable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the safety emphasis ('never expose the token') implies it is the safe diagnostic choice.

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