garmin_api_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds the useful caveat that it 'returns unshaped payloads,' which goes beyond the structured annotations. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a raw API accessor this is acceptable given the openWorldHint.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the usage rule is explicit, and the example is embedded naturally. 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?

For a fallback API accessor with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: when to use it, what the path looks like, and what to expect in return. It doesn't address error handling or parameter encoding, but given the tool's nature and the openWorldHint, these are minor gaps.

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 schema gives zero description for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It provides an example path with placeholders and query string, giving concrete meaning to the parameter. While it could enumerate more path variants, the example suffices for a generic tool.

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?

Clearly states it calls any Garmin Connect API path directly, specifies read-only GET, and scopes it to endpoints not covered by dedicated tools. The example path further clarifies the resource format. This strongly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer a dedicated tool when one exists' and defines when to use this tool: for endpoints the dedicated tools do not cover. This gives unambiguous selection criteria relative to the 34 siblings.

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