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. It mentions optional filtering but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the max_items parameter), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('List available Garmin running training plans') and adds essential qualifiers ('with optional filters for goal distance and experience level'). Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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 (listing with filters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, output format) and explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (goal_distance, experience_level, max_items) with descriptions and a default for max_items. The description adds marginal value by mentioning optional filters for goal distance and experience level, but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema, aligning with the baseline for high 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Garmin running training plans'), specifies the domain (running training plans), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing plans rather than analyzing metrics, downloading files, or setting goals. It's specific and immediately understandable.

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 through optional filters for goal distance and experience level, suggesting it's for finding relevant plans. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_training_plan_overview' or 'get_training_plan_schedule', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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