garmin_events

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavior. It discloses that events include target distance and goal finish time, but does not discuss authentication needs, rate limits, or edge cases (e.g., empty calendar). The behavior is simple due to zero parameters, but more detail on the output would improve transparency.

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-formed sentence that quickly conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool. It mentions two key data points (distance, goal time) beyond just 'events.' However, it could hint at data freshness or event details like date/location to anticipate common agent queries.

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?

There are no parameters, achieving 100% schema coverage trivially. The description correctly adds no param-specific information. Since no parameters exist, the baseline of 4 applies, as the tool requires no user input.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving upcoming race events from a Garmin calendar. It specifies the resource (race events) and action (get), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like garmin_activities (training data) or garmin_challenges (challenges).

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?

While the description states what the tool does, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as garmin_training_plan or garmin_activity_detail. The context is clear, but no exclusionary criteria or examples of when not to use are given.

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