get_stress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the optional timeseries is capped at 48 points. The verb 'Get' also implies a read-only operation, but other behaviors like default date handling, timezone effects, or pagination are not addressed.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends a relevant constraint. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the core result and one notable limitation. Yet it leaves parameter semantics, date format, and the mapping of 'optional series' to `include_timeseries` unexplained, and there are no annotations to fill those gaps.

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. It vaguely alludes to the timeseries parameter via 'optional series' and adds the 48-point cap, but it never names or explains `date` or `include_timeseries`. The meaning of 'daily' weakly hints at the date parameter but is not sufficient.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get Garmin daily stress durations') and is clearly distinct from sibling metrics like sleep, HRV, or body composition. However, it does not clarify exactly what 'daily stress durations' returns or how it differs from the related get_daily_summary tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. The stress-specific wording implies its use case, but it does not state exclusions or compare against alternatives like get_daily_summary or get_recovery.

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