Garmin Connect MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is insufficient for a mutation-free tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Summarize a specific Garmin training plan') and lists key details without unnecessary elaboration. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the components (e.g., phases vs. schedule), but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and output details, which are important since no output schema is provided. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete for a tool that summarizes training plans.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (plan_id and schedule_weeks). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'schedule preview' which aligns with the schedule_weeks parameter, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, such as format details or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('Garmin training plan'), including what details are provided ('high-level details, phases, and schedule preview'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_training_plans' by focusing on a specific plan rather than listing, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_training_plan_schedule' which might overlap in schedule-related 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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'a specific Garmin training plan' and referencing 'plan_id returned by list_training_plans' in the schema, suggesting it should be used after listing plans. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_training_plan_schedule' or 'get_training_status', and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the plan_id.

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