Recoveries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions sorting and filtering but omits pagination behavior (despite having limit and nextToken parameters), response format, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Every word is functional: the first sentence lists metrics, the second specifies sorting and filtering. No fluff.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters including pagination tokens, but the description does not explain pagination (how limit and nextToken work together), nor does it specify the response structure. With no output schema, the agent lacks guidance on what to expect beyond a list of recovery scores.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal extra context by noting start/end are for date filtering. It does not elaborate on limit or nextToken beyond their schema descriptions, which is adequate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the specific resource 'puntuaciones de recovery del usuario' including recovery score, HRV, resting heart rate, SpO2, and skin temperature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_recovery_for_cycle' by implying this lists all recoveries.

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 ordering (most recent to oldest) and filtering via start/end dates, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply a specific use case for cycle-specific recovery.

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