Pump settings history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does substantial work. It flags the wall-clock-not-UTC convention, warns that the trailing 'Z' is a format artifact, clarifies per-segment times as pump-schedule clock-hours, and states glucose units. It omits auth or rate-limit details, but covers the behaviors most likely to cause misinterpretation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what is returned, the second gives usage context, and the remaining sentences add only high-value details about time handling and output shape. Every sentence earns its place without filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explicitly describing the returned settings array, its per-entry fields, and the time-segment shape ({from, value}). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its results correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The schema already documents start and end as required ISO 8601 wall-clock timestamps, inclusive behavior, and the timezone caveat. The description reinforces the window concept but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it retrieves every Omnipod 5 setting change in effect during a window, in chronological order, and enumerates exactly what is included (DIA, max basal rate, target/ISF/carb-ratio profiles). This scope is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on glucose, trends, boluses, and device events.

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 use cases: establishing which settings were active before judging a bolus or excursion, and reviewing how settings changed over a long span. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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