Garmin Connect MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions building a 'snapshot' and calendar alignment 'when available', which hints at read-only behavior and conditional data inclusion. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), which is insufficient for a tool with potential data retrieval complexities.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and adds a clarifying detail about calendar alignment without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with other tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more contextual information would be beneficial for the agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool generates a schedule based on 'plan_id' and 'weeks', but it does not provide additional context like how calendar alignment works or the implications of parameter choices. This meets the baseline for 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: 'Build a weekly schedule snapshot for a training plan' with the addition of 'including personal calendar alignment when available'. It specifies the verb ('build'), resource ('weekly schedule snapshot'), and scope ('training plan'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_training_plan_overview' or 'list_training_plans'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions calendar alignment as a feature but does not specify prerequisites, conditions for use, or when other tools like 'get_training_plan_overview' might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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