garmin_sleep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by detailing the output structure (hours total, phases, score, optional heart rate/respiration) and mentions error handling with 'Error: ...'. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 tool's simplicity (single date, sleep data), the description covers output structure and error cases. Although an output schema exists, the description explains the return values adequately. It could mention behavior for missing data or date ranges, but overall it is complete for the intended use.

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?

Despite the schema having parameter descriptions, the context notes 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists the parameters: date (YYYY-MM-DD) and response_format (markdown|json), matching the schema and clarifying their types. The return description further enriches understanding of how parameters affect output.

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 it provides a breakdown of a night's sleep including phases, total duration, and score. The title 'Desglose de sueño (Garmin)' reinforces this. The sibling tools are distinct (readiness, activities, HRV, etc.), so there is no confusion about its purpose.

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 implicitly indicates it is for querying sleep data for a single night, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_daily_readiness or fitness_daily_brief that may also include sleep metrics. No exclusion criteria or context switching guidance is provided.

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