garmin_weekly_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, require authentication, or explain what 'training volume statistics' includes (e.g., distance, time). The description lacks key operational details for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameter. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a top score.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter options adequately. However, it does not describe the return format or the nature of 'aggregated statistics,' which could be helpful. Still, given the tool's low complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds significant value by explaining the period parameter's meaning and the exact durations (7, 30, 365 days) beyond the schema's enum values. This clarifies the parameter's semantics, compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 gets aggregated training volume statistics for a given period, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. This is distinct from sibling tools like garmin_activities or garmin_health, which focus on lists or health metrics. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 for retrieving training volume stats over a period but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_activities or garmin_health. No exclusions or context for selecting this tool are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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