Fitbit Demo

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that it returns example payloads (not real data) and specifies which endpoints are demonstrated. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description enriches understanding.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, target endpoints, and usage context. No redundant 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?

For a demo tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context about what it returns and when to use it. It does not explain the response_format parameter or give example output, but the tool's purpose is modest and well-served by the description.

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%, so description should compensate. However, it does not mention the 'response_format' parameter (enum, default 'markdown'), leaving its role implicit. While the parameter is simple, the description fails to clarify how the output format affects the demo payloads.

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 returns realistic example payloads for three specific endpoints, distinguishing it from sibling tools that make real API calls. It uses specific verb 'returns' and resource names.

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 explicitly says 'before calling real Fitbit APIs', implying it is for preview/exploration. While it does not name alternatives, the context of sibling tools that are real API calls provides differentiation.

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