garmin_steps

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the two modes (daily range vs. intraday) and specifying the 15-minute bucket granularity for intraday data. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any error behavior. Since annotations already cover read-only and open-world semantics, the description provides some additional value but falls short of fully characterizing the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, conveying the primary function in a single sentence. It wastes no words and immediately communicates the two usage modes. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter detail, so while the structure is efficient, it sacrifices completeness.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify date formats, parameter combinations, default behaviors, or the structure of the returned data. An agent calling this tool would need to infer or experiment to use it correctly. The description provides only a high-level overview, not enough for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it only mentions intraday_date explicitly. It implies start and end define the range for daily totals, but does not clarify their format, whether they are required together, or what happens if intraday_date is also provided. The relationship between the parameters is ambiguous, leaving the agent to guess at valid inputs.

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 tool's function: retrieving daily step totals over a date range, with an alternative intraday mode for 15-minute buckets via the intraday_date parameter. It names the resource (steps) and the two operational modes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_heart_rate or garmin_sleep. It could be slightly more explicit about the distinction from other health metric tools, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that it should be used for step data specifically, nor does it reference alternative tools for other metrics. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it over other Garmin tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool's name and description, which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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