Recovery trends

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

Annotations already mark it readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that trend directions account for metric polarity (rising HRV good, rising RHR bad), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. Still lacks details on edge cases like days outside 7-180.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and immediately provides specifics. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description covers the key aspects: metrics, window, polarity. Could mention the return format lightly, but overall sufficient for a one-param trend tool.

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?

Only one parameter (days), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description implicitly documents the valid range (7-180 days) but does not mention the default of 30 days, which is in the schema. For a single parameter with no enums, this is adequate compensation.

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 lists specific metrics (recovery %, HRV, resting heart rate) and outputs (statistics, trend direction, unusual days, daily table), distinguishing it from siblings like get_recoveries which likely returns raw recovery points.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for aggregated trend analysis over a window, but does not mention alternatives like get_recoveries for raw data.

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