fitness_planned_vs_actual

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

The description reveals important behavioral details: planned includes only scheduled structured workouts, cross is by day, and outputs include adherence percentage. Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond those.

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 well-structured with clear sections for explanation, arguments, and returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple input schema and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return format, adherence calculation logic, and detailed output description, making it complete.

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 description adds meaning to parameters by explaining date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and the response_format enum values, which are already in the schema. It also contextualizes the parameters within the tool's logic.

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 compares planned vs actual workouts and calculates adherence. It distinguishes from siblings like garmin_get_activities or fitness_weekly_summary by focusing specifically on plan adherence.

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 explains the tool is used for comparing planned and actual workouts in a date range. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the context of siblings makes its unique purpose clear.

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