Fitbit Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing what is checked (config, token, Node version, etc.) and explicitly stating it does not call Fitbit or expose secrets, providing safety context beyond annotations.

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 long sentence that lists multiple items, which is somewhat concise but could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of concepts.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains or how to interpret results. The two optional parameters are undocumented, and no guidance on typical use cases is provided.

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 does not explain the 'client' or 'response_format' parameters, their options, or how they affect behavior. This leaves agents without guidance on selecting values.

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 checks local Fitbit config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness, and optional MCP client readiness without calling Fitbit or exposing secrets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch data or perform actions.

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 implies usage for pre-flight checks before making API calls, noting it avoids external calls and secret exposure. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like other status tools.

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