garmin_strength_analysis

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content and the max cap of 20 (not in the schema), which implies a read-only analytical operation, but it never states permissions, side effects, or whether it triggers any sync/computation.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place and the core capability is front-loaded. Minor redundancy with the schema's default value of 5 for limit.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both optional parameters and the two selection modes. The only real gap is routing guidance against overlapping activity-detail tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains that activity_id is optional and scopes to a single activity, and adds a max of 20 for limit that appears nowhere in the schema. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare integer types.

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?

"Get strength training analysis" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the actual outputs (active sets, reps, volume load, muscle groups, runner fatigue advice). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like garmin_activity_detail, though the description never names an alternative to reinforce the distinction.

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 implicitly defines two usage modes by stating that activity_id inspects one activity while limit summarizes recent ones when activity_id is omitted. That is useful conditional guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over garmin_activity_detail or garmin_activities.

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