health.read_samples

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

The description mentions 'manifest-aware pagination' as a behavioral detail, but without annotations, it does not fully disclose behavior like whether it is read-only, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The description adds some value beyond the schema, but not comprehensive.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous details. It is efficiently front-loaded with the verb 'Read'.

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?

Given the complexity (10 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits details like union-based tag matching and the exact behavior of manifest-only. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (filtering by type_keys/tags/kinds) beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool reads raw Health samples and mentions filtering by type_keys, tags, and kinds, as well as manifest-aware pagination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like health.read_daily_raw or health.read_range_metrics, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., health.read_daily_raw for daily aggregates) or prerequisites such as having a source connected. The description simply states what it does without context.

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