garmin_personal_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the tool's safety and side-effect profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context—mentioning return format (markdown or json) and error output—but does not expand beyond what annotations imply. With strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The Args/Returns section provides additional structure, though the formatting is slightly informal. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary words.

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 that annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return content ('lista de records con tipo, valor y fecha') and format options. However, it could be more explicit about the exact types of personal records included.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only clarifies the response_format parameter by listing its allowed values ('markdown|json'), which are already defined as an enum in the schema. It does not describe the inner structure of the 'params' object or provide any additional semantics beyond the schema. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: listing personal records from Garmin ('mejores marcas'). The verb 'Lista' is specific, and the resource 'records personales de Garmin' distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_race_predictions or garmin_get_activities, though it could be more precise about the types of records.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or compare with sibling tools such as garmin_get_activities or garmin_race_predictions.

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