Check Fitbit Air sync freshness, row counts, wear days, and Google login age before analysis. Run this first to verify local health data is current and complete.
Last sync and analysis, row counts, wear days, and how old the Google login is. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by spelling out the information returned (sync/analysis recency, row counts, wear days, login age), which is meaningful context given there is no output schema.
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?
Two short sentences, the content list first and the imperative 'Call this first' last, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description carries the remaining burden by describing the return contents and the recommended call order. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no argument semantics to clarify. The description correctly implies a no-input diagnostic call rather than suggesting any configuration.
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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports — last sync and analysis, row counts, wear days, and Google login age — so an agent knows it is a data-freshness/diagnostics read. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, but 'Call this first' signals its role as the entry point relative to tools like get_overview or refresh_data.
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?
'Call this first' gives explicit sequencing guidance that most sibling tools lack, telling the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or a when-not condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.