garmin_zones

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description explains what data is returned, but it does not cover permissions, rate limits, response shape, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concrete usage note and a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned, how to use it, and what each sport value means, leaving no critical ambiguity for correct invocation.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining that sport selects the zone configuration and clarifying that 'default' means Garmin's account-wide default. The enum values themselves are already in the schema, but the added meaning is valuable.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (heart rate zone boundaries and threshold values), with the scope narrowed to one sport. It clearly distinguishes itself from garmin_activity_detail by explaining that the latter only returns seconds per zone without boundaries.

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?

It gives a strong when-to-use signal by naming garmin_activity_detail hrZones as the data this tool is meant to interpret. It does not state exclusions or alternative tools explicitly, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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