get_recovery_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only aggregation over historical data, but it does not explain whether the result is a point-in-time series, averaged values, or how missing data is handled. The existence of an output schema mitigates some ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the metrics covered, and the supported time windows efficiently. 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?

For a one-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the metrics, time windows, and parameter meaning. It lacks only an explicit statement of what 'Trend' returns, but the output schema presumably covers return values, so this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'over 7/14/28 days' adds meaning to the single 'days' parameter by hinting at valid values, which the schema does not constrain with an enum. However, it does not explicitly document the parameter name, default behavior, or what happens for values outside 7/14/28.

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 names a specific action ('Trend') and a resource set ('sleep HR/temp, HRV, RHR, readiness, and Body Battery') over explicit windows (7/14/28 days). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_hrv or get_sleep, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to contrast with.

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 implied by the time-window language: this is the tool for multi-day recovery trends rather than single-day snapshots. However, the description never states when to prefer this over get_recovery, get_hrv, or get_training_readiness, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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