sync_garmin

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: it pulls data for the last N days, performs an upsert (idempotent), and specifies data categories. This goes beyond a simple 'sync' statement, though it could mention prerequisites or side effects.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary detail without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the core functionality (what data is synced, idempotency, time range). It could mention error handling or prerequisites but is sufficient for typical use.

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 adds meaning to the only parameter ('days: Number of days to sync (default 7)'). This explains its purpose beyond the raw schema, compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 it syncs Garmin health data into DuckDB, specifies data types (daily stats, activities, sleep, etc.), and mentions idempotent upsert. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_status which likely only check status.

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 when to use (to sync recent Garmin data for cross-querying with MacroFactor), but lacks explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusion criteria. Siblings like data_status or garmin_status are not mentioned.

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