garmin_sleep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a non-mutating retrieval of sleep data, which is appropriate, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens when no data exists for the requested date. The output schema covers return structure, but behavioral details beyond simple retrieval are sparse.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and key metrics with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool returns and for what time period.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, this description is nearly sufficient. It names the core data available and the per-night scope; the only minor gap is not spelling out that 'date' defaults to today, though the input schema already communicates that. Overall, an agent can select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%: the only parameter, 'date', is already documented as an ISO date defaulting to today. The description adds that results cover 'one night', which aligns naturally with the date parameter but does not introduce new semantic detail. This matches the baseline expectation when the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 names the resource (sleep) and lists specific metrics (score, stages, SpO2, respiration, overnight HRV), while 'for one night' bounds the scope. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the noun-phrase structure still conveys a read operation and distinguishes this tool from siblings such as garmin_hrv or garmin_heart_rate.

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 temporal scope ('for one night') and metric list imply when to use the tool, and the title 'garmin_sleep' makes the domain obvious. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related Garmin tools, nor any stated exclusions or alternative options. Context is clear but largely inferred.

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