get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered structurally. The description adds that the settings come from a connected Fitbit/Google Health account, hinting at an external dependency, but does not disclose behavior when no account is connected or what auth is needed — meaningful given openWorldHint=true.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with an undisclosed return shape.

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?

Simple no-arg read with annotations covering safety, but there is no output schema, so an agent has no idea what 'settings' and 'preferences' actually contain (units, timezone, sync config, etc.). A brief enumeration of the returned settings would materially improve call planning.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly makes no parameter claims and instead scopes the resource, which is the right move for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('connected Fitbit/Google Health settings and configured preferences'), which is distinguishable from siblings like get_profile, get_devices, and get_sync_status. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it below 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: an agent wanting configuration/preferences would pick this. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternatives named (e.g., get_profile for personal info, get_devices for device list).

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