Intensity minutes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the data is measured against the weekly goal, which goes beyond the 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core metric and includes the key goal context. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema and one optional parameter. The description covers what is returned—daily intensity minutes against the weekly goal—and the annotations cover safety. The main gap is lack of date parameter usage detail, but the overall context is otherwise sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented date parameter. It says 'for a day,' which hints that the date parameter selects the day, but it does not explain date format, optional/default behavior, or what null means, leaving significant ambiguity for a parameter with no schema description.

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 identifies a specific resource—moderate and vigorous intensity minutes—and scopes it to a day against the weekly goal, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_heart_rate or garmin_steps. It lacks an explicit verb but is not a tautology and tells an agent what data this tool provides.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as garmin_daily_summary or garmin_activities_by_date. The description implies it is for intensity minutes for a single day, but it never states exclusion criteria or points to a sibling for related use cases.

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