garmin_read

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Read' plus the enumeration of returned content implies a non-mutating snapshot and reveals output shape, but nothing is said about side effects, page-size limits, staleness of the snapshot, or whether the numbering is stable across calls — all relevant for an agent deciding whether to re-read before acting.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first and the returned content follows. The trailing list ('text and numbered buttons, links and fields') is slightly loose in punctuation but still readable.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what comes back but not how the numbering is used, whether the snapshot is live, or how to scope by element in practice. Adequate to invoke, thin for using the result correctly in a click/type workflow.

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 100% and the single optional 'element' parameter is already documented as 'Read only inside this element.' The description adds no additional meaning about scoping behavior (e.g., whether descendants are included or how element numbers are discovered), so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the current Garmin Connect page') and enumerates the payload ('text and numbered buttons, links and fields'), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like garmin_status or garmin_guide, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives named. The mention of 'numbered buttons' implicitly signals the intended workflow (read the page, then act on an index via garmin_click), but that hand-off is never spelled out.

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