query_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of retrieving device info adds modest context (e.g., settings, solar data) beyond the safety profile. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination, data freshness) or any side effects, which would elevate transparency.

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 concise at two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. It effectively summarizes the tool's capability without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., bullet points for the included info types.

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?

Given the tool has 6 boolean parameters, an output schema, and annotations for read-only behavior, the description covers the high-level purpose. It does not explain how device_id=null vs specific id affects results, or the relationship between include_* parameters. More context about default behavior would improve completeness.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description lists the general categories of information, but does not add deeper semantic meaning or usage guidance beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query' and the resource 'Garmin devices', and lists specific types of information obtainable (last used device, primary training device, settings, solar data, alarms). While it distinguishes from sibling tools like query_activities or query_gear by focusing on devices, it does not explicitly differentiate why an agent would choose this over other query tools.

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 when device information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor mentions any prerequisites or context for invocation. The lack of when-not-to-use examples or alternative tool references makes it merely adequate.

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