List Fitbit Devices

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

Description adds the scope requirement ('Requires settings scope') beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), which already indicate a safe, read-only operation. No contradictions; the additional context is valuable but does not cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 with two sentences, no filler, and efficiently front-loads the purpose before the requirement.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of typical use cases or error conditions, but the overall context is adequately covered.

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 50%, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (privacy_mode and response_format). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'devices connected to the authenticated Fitbit account', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like fitbit_list_activities or fitbit_get_profile. The addition of scope requirement adds specificity.

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 such as other list tools. The description only states the scope requirement, leaving the agent without explicit context on selection or exclusion criteria.

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