Get weight

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world operation, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: weights are in grams, body composition appears only when a smart scale recorded it, and nearest weigh-ins are returned when the range has no data.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns before covering units and parameter details. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and only sparse annotations, the description does a solid job covering purpose, units, conditional body composition, default date behavior, and include_all semantics. It could be slightly more complete by describing response structure or any range-size limitations, but it is sufficient 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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explains that start and end use inclusive YYYY-MM-DD format with a default of the 7 days ending today, and that include_all lists every weigh-in per day with time and body composition rather than just the latest.

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 resource and scope: daily weight summaries over a range, the range average, and nearest weigh-ins before and after the range. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling garmin_get_weight_goals, but the weight-summary framing makes the general purpose unambiguous.

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 gives useful context such as the default date range and when the nearest weigh-in fallback is handy, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_get_weight_goals or other wellness tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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