CGM quickstart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the return content (3-step, personalized, mock→live walkthrough), consistent with a non-mutating read operation. No contradiction with annotations; it complements them.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage trigger follows immediately. Every word 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?

Adequate for a fairly simple tool with optional enum params and no output schema. The description covers core purpose and usage trigger. However, the undocumented 'client' parameter is a real gap — an agent has no guidance on how to choose a client value — and the description doesn't describe the walkthrough's output structure.

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 coverage is only 50% — the client parameter has no schema description and the tool description doesn't compensate for it. Neither parameter (client, privacy_mode) is explained in the description. The 'client' enum values (claude, codex, cursor...) lack any guidance on selection, and the description adds zero parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema partially provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a personalized 3-step walkthrough') with clear scope (mock mode → live mode for Dexcom). The specificity of 'mock → live transition' helps distinguish it from siblings like cgm_connection_status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from cgm_onboarding, which could conceptually overlap.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Call this first when the user asks how do I connect my CGM?' This is actionable routing guidance. However, it doesn't name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when cgm_onboarding or cgm_connection_status should be preferred instead.

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