Withings Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: it does not reveal secret values, and lists the categories of posture returned. Adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with what the tool returns, no wasted words. Every part of the description is informative and earned 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 simple read-only diagnostic with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. It does not explain the output schema, but that is covered by the output schema itself. Minor gap in usage context, but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single parameter response_format at all. While the parameter is simple with enum values, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which is a deficiency given low coverage.

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 verb 'Return' and specifics what is returned (local privacy, cache, token-path, env-presence posture) while distinguishing it does not reveal secret values. Among 23 sibling tools, this uniquely identifies a diagnostic privacy audit.

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 explicit when or when-not to use. The description implies it is used for privacy posture checks, but does not contrast with similar tools like withings_cache_status or withings_connection_status. Lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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