get_recovery_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: it returns missing-item markers rather than imputing values, and it explicitly refuses to generate a fabricated recovery score. That tells the agent to expect gaps in the data instead of a computed verdict. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but '读取' plus the output schema covers most of the remaining ground.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the returned fields first and the non-behavior second; there is no filler and nothing an agent must read past to act.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a read-only single-parameter tool is low risk. Still, the omitted-date default and the meaning of '缺失项' (missing items — missing days, missing metrics, or both?) leave gaps that matter for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description only says 'specified date', which essentially restates the parameter name. Critically, `date` is not required, yet the description never explains the default behavior when it is omitted (today? most recent sync?), nor the expected format or timezone.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取'/read) plus named resources (resting heart rate, sleep HRV, missing items) scoped to a date, which is far more concrete than the tool name alone. It implicitly separates itself from score-producing siblings by stating it does not fabricate a recovery score, but it never names get_overview or get_training_load directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for pulling raw daily recovery metrics rather than a synthesized score, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'for X use Y instead' guidance. Given eight siblings including get_overview and get_training_load, an explicit routing sentence would have been valuable.

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