humsana_get_user_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. Although 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, what permissions are required, or whether data is sensitive. It lacks details on side effects, auth needs, or any limitations beyond the verb itself.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word serves a function; there is no filler or repetition.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned (stress, focus, fatigue, response style recommendations) and when to use it. It could be improved by detailing the output format or scale, but the current description is largely complete for its intended use.

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, making schema coverage vacuously 100%. The description appropriately does not elaborate on parameters. According to the calibration, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4.

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 function with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource: the user's current behavioral state, listing concrete components (stress level, focus level, fatigue, response style recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on command execution and file writes.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this at the start of conversations to adapt your communication style.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given that siblings are unrelated safety/execution tools, such guidance is unnecessary. This is clear context without exclusions.

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