show_recovery

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it produces an interactive dual-line chart, offers range toggles, and returns a short text summary alongside the visual. This is sufficient for a low-risk read tool.

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?

Three sentences each earn their place: the first states what the tool shows, the second gives routing guidance, and the third describes the returned output. Information is front-loaded and there is no 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?

With one optional parameter, a fully documented schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers the visual output, interaction behavior, and high-level return format.

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 schema fully documents the single optional range parameter with an enum and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of a range toggle but omits the 7d option present in the schema enum, so it does not fully align with and adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: showing resting heart rate and HRV recovery trend over time. It also specifies the output form as an interactive dual-line chart with a range toggle, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling show_* tools and list_recovery_sessions.

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 to prefer this tool when the user asks about recovery trends and to render the interactive MCP app rather than describing rows in text. It provides clear context and a preferred behavior, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool.

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