icu_download_fit_file

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the tool converts the activity to FIT format and targets Garmin/training platforms. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence specifies the core action, and the second provides differentiation. No unnecessary words, and the information is effectively front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and how it differs from siblings. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema covers that.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are adequate. The description does not add new information about the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 verb 'Download' and the resource 'activity converted to FIT format', specifying its intended use for Garmin and training platforms. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming alternative formats, making the 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 names two alternatives (download_activity_file and download_gpx_file) and explains their differences, guiding when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites, which would make it a 5.

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