Garmin Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar for transparency is lower. The description adds that secret values are not revealed, which is useful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral details beyond what is implied.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 15 words that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are defined elsewhere. However, the description could be more complete by mentioning that the tool is safe to call multiple times (idempotent) and that it requires no credentials beyond the local environment. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is adequate.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention the 'response_format' parameter or its effect. This leaves the agent without guidance on how the parameter influences output, despite it being the only parameter.

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 a specific set of privacy-related information (local privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence posture), distinguishing it from siblings like garmin_cache_status or garmin_auth_instructions. The verb 'return' is precise.

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 auditing privacy posture, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., garmin_cache_status). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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