get-fitness-stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Get', but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and is efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 parameters, no output schema), the description conveys the essential concept of aggregated stats over a range. However, it does not explain the return format or provide examples, but it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning. The mention of 'by activity type' is not reflected in the parameters and may mislead users into thinking there is an activity type filter.

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 it retrieves aggregated fitness stats over a date range, which distinguishes it from siblings that retrieve individual activities or daily summaries. However, it mentions 'by activity type' which is not an explicit parameter, causing slight ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other get-* tools like get-activity or get-daily-summary. The description only states the scope (date range) but does not provide exclusionary criteria or alternatives.

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