get_hrv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful, non-obvious limitation: optional readings are capped at 48 points. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get', though not explicitly stated, so there is still some room for more transparency.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the limiting behavior is appended clearly. Every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple getter, especially since an output schema exists to document return fields. However, it fails to explain the semantics of the date parameter and offers no usage guidance relative to siblings, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 the two parameters. It indirectly references timeseries readings, which maps to include_timeseries, but it never explains the date parameter, its default behavior, or what the returned values represent. This is insufficient for full parameter clarity.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieving Garmin HRV status and nightly values. This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools focused on sleep, stress, recovery, or body composition, so an agent can tell what domain this tool belongs to.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, nor whether it should be used for current status versus historical HRV data. The 'optional readings' note hints at timeseries usage, but the description never states when to use it or what the date parameter should represent.

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