Samsung Health MCP Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it notes that live Samsung Health access is unavailable, clarifying a key limitation. This goes beyond annotations by explaining what the tool does not do, which is valuable.

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, front-loaded sentence covering all key aspects (export data, live access, privacy modes, workflow). No wasted words or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 meta-tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it explains and its scope. It does not require explanation of return values. Minor omission: it could mention the output format control, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 the description should compensate. However, it does not mention the optional response_format parameter or its enum values (markdown, json). The schema is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond it, leaving a minor gap for a simple 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's purpose: 'Explain supported Samsung Health export data, unavailable live Samsung Health access, privacy modes and recommended agent workflow.' It uses a specific verb ('Explain') and distinct resources (export data, live access, privacy modes, workflow), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_records or daily_summary.

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 this tool is for understanding overall capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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