get_garmin_body_battery

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the time range ('des N derniers jours') and charge/discharge states. It does not mention authentication requirements, data granularity, units, or any side effects. Given that this accesses personal health data, more behavioral context is needed.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for its content.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema covers return values, so that is not required. However, the lack of behavioral context (authentication, data detail) reduces completeness. It could benefit from mentioning that the data is historical and requires prior authentication via the authenticate sibling.

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 should add meaning to the 'days' parameter. The description implies the parameter controls the number of days ('N derniers jours'), but it does not explicitly reference the parameter or explain valid values, range, or behavior. It partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but leaves gaps.

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 'Body Battery Garmin des N derniers jours (charge/décharge)' clearly indicates the tool retrieves Garmin body battery data for a recent period. The verb 'get' is implied by the tool name, and the description specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_garmin_hrv or get_garmin_sleep. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_garmin_hrv or get_garmin_sleep. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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