garmin_connection_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no personal data is returned, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool requires prior authentication, rate limits, or what happens on failure—basic context for a connection check.

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 redundant words. It immediately conveys the core function and a key constraint, making optimal use of space.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description is nearly complete. It explains the check and the privacy safeguard. A minor gap is not mentioning what the output represents (e.g., a boolean status), but since the output schema exists, this is acceptable.

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, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the tool's purpose (status check) and side effect (no personal data), which informs an agent that this is a safe, non-invasive operation.

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 states the specific action ('Check Garmin Connect login') and explicitly clarifies what it does NOT do ('without returning personal data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that might return personal data like garmin_profile or garmin_daily_stats.

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 verifying login status without exposing personal information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_ping (which might be a generic connectivity check). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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