get_sleep_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: this tool depends on a prior official COROS MCP read and normally requires normalized official sleep records as input. It does not disclose fallback behavior if the official read fails, but the added dependency information goes beyond the annotations.

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 carry the essential precondition and exception with no filler. The mandatory requirement is front-loaded and unambiguous.

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, so the description should explain return behavior, but it does not. It also omits date format expectations, normalization specifics, and what to do if the official read fails. The tool's core behavior remains underspecified for an agent trying to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains officialSleepRecords and says the date range must match the official read; startDate and endDate formats are not described, and the meaning of the individual sleep record fields is left entirely to 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 does not explicitly state what get_sleep_data does; it only mandates a precondition involving the official COROS sleep tool and the officialSleepRecords parameter. The tool name and the mention of 'sleep tool' imply it returns sleep data, but there is no direct verb+resource statement such as 'Retrieves sleep data for a date range.'

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 explicit, mandatory usage instructions: first read the same date range with the official COROS MCP sleep tool, normalize the result, and supply it as officialSleepRecords. It also states when not to call the tool (when officialSleepRecords is omitted, unless the official read failed). It does not compare against sibling tools, but the precondition is clear and actionable.

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