garmin-china
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation3/5
Many tools exist for activities (e.g., activities, last_activity, activity_detail, get_activity, get_activity_splits, etc.) and weather (weather_now, weather_forecast, weather_at, etc.), causing confusion. However, descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish most, though some overlap remains (e.g., steps_data vs daily_steps).
Naming Consistency2/5Naming is inconsistent: some tools use plain nouns (sleep, stress, weight), others use snake_case with 'get_' prefix (get_hill_score, get_workout_templates), and a few use inconsistent patterns (garmin_weekly_health, garmin_run_conditions). No clear convention across the set.
Tool Count3/555 tools is high for a single server, but the domain is broad (health metrics, activities, weather, training). Some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple activity detail tools), but the count is borderline appropriate for a comprehensive Garmin data interface.
Completeness4/5The server covers a wide range of health metrics, activities, workouts, weather, and training analysis. It lacks write/update tools (e.g., create activity, edit workout) but is thorough for read-only queries. Minor gaps like missing workout creation or editing are acceptable for a data retrieval-focused server.
Average 2.6/5 across 55 of 55 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or return format. The description carries the full burden for transparency but contributes nothing beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but constitutes under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no actionable information and does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and context signals, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'typed splits' means, how it differs from other split tools, or what the output contains. The tool is left ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'activity_id' has no description in the schema. The tool description does not add any meaning or context for this parameter, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '活动类型化分段' is a Chinese translation of the tool name, essentially restating it without clarifying what the tool does. It fails to specify the verb or resource, and with sibling tools like get_activity_splits and get_activity_split_summaries, the purpose is indistinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., get_activity, get_activity_splits, get_activity_weather), the lack of usage context is a critical omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It gives no information about what the tool returns, whether it updates data, requires authentication, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer any behavioral traits beyond the vague name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one word) but critically under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information. The single word does not explain the tool's function, parameters, or behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, 2 parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is completely insufficient. It does not describe what the output contains, how date filtering works, or how this tool differs from similar health metrics tools. The agent has no basis for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 optional parameters (start_date, end_date) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain these parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value about expected date formats, required ranges, or how they affect the query.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is the Chinese translation of the tool name ('乳酸阈值' = 'Lactate threshold'), which is a tautology. It does not state what the tool does, such as 'retrieve the user's lactate threshold value' or clarify the resource being accessed. With siblings like get_hill_score, hr_intraday, vo2max, etc., the description fails to distinguish this tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Many sibling tools also return health metrics (e.g., vo2max, get_endurance_score), but the description offers no context for when lactate threshold is appropriate or how it differs from similar metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only repeats the tool name in Chinese and fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what date-range constraints apply, or what the output schema contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two characters), but this under-specification is not conciseness—it fails to provide any useful content. A concise description should convey critical information in few words, not merely repeat the name in another language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, 2 optional parameters, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what the endurance score represents, how the date parameters affect the result, and how it relates to sibling tools like get_hill_score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or format of the start_date and end_date parameters. Without any parameter documentation, an agent cannot know how to format dates or what date range is valid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is '耐力分数', which is the Chinese translation of 'endurance score'. This is a tautology—it simply restates the tool name in another language without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves, calculates, or returns a score). The sibling context shows many data retrieval tools (e.g., get_hill_score, sleep, resting_hr), so the description fails to distinguish this tool's specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hill_score or user_summary. It lacks any context about prerequisites, recommended input ranges, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. The description only restates the name in Chinese, offering zero information about side effects, required permissions, data mutability, or rate limits. It fails to inform the agent whether this is a read operation or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one word), which is concise, but it is severely underspecified. It sacrifices all informative content for brevity. A 2 reflects that it is not verbose nor confusing, but it fails to earn its place by adding zero value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and two optional parameters, the description provides no contextual completeness. The agent has no idea what fitness age data means, how to interpret the output, or how the optional parameters affect results. Given the complexity of the domain and many siblings, this is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the two parameters ('date' and 'details'). The agent gets no insight into what the date parameter expects (e.g., format, allowed values) or what the 'details' boolean does. The schema provides names but no human-readable context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '体适能年龄' is merely a Chinese translation of the tool name ('Fitness Age'). It is a tautology that does not clarify what the tool does—whether it retrieves, calculates, or compares fitness age data. For non-Chinese users, it's opaque.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus any of the 50+ sibling tools, such as 'get_endurance_score' or 'user_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. The description fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authorization for the specific activity, or what side effects might occur. It provides no value beyond a cryptic title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information to justify its brevity, wasting the opportunity to clarify purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what input is needed, what the output represents, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'weather_now' or 'get_activity'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the 'activity_id' parameter. The description provides no additional meaning over the parameter name 'Activity Id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '活动天气数据' is in Chinese and translates to 'activity weather data', which is vague and fails to state a specific verb or resource. It does not distinguish this tool from numerous weather-related siblings (e.g., 'weather_now', 'weather_forecast', 'weather_at').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and given the many sibling tools for weather and activities, there is no differentiation from alternatives like 'weather_at' or 'get_activity'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It offers zero information about side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or return characteristics, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short (one word), it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It fails to earn its place because it provides no actionable value to the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 0% parameter coverage, absence of annotations, and over 40 sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention it or hint at the return type, leaving major gaps for a two-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the input schema), and the tool description adds nothing about the parameters. It does not explain date formats, purpose of start_date and end_date, or any constraints, forcing the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a single Chinese phrase '爬坡分数' which translates to 'hill score', essentially a tautology of the tool name 'get_hill_score'. It provides no verb or resource context and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like endurance_score or fitnessage_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when or when not to use this tool, no alternatives are mentioned, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent receives no context to decide between this and dozens of similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits: whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output represents. The description only restates the concept of readiness without operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks substance, so brevity is not a virtue here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the readiness score is computed, or how the optional date parameter affects results. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'date' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on format, meaning, or usage (e.g., date format, default behavior).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '训练准备度 — 当日身体准备训练的程度' (training readiness - degree of readiness for the day), but it lacks a verb to indicate what the tool does (e.g., 'retrieves', 'provides'). It is nearly tautological with the name, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'training_status' which likely overlap in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to state any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or side effects. The description is entirely silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 characters in Chinese), but this brevity sacrifices informational content. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; there is room to add value without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the crowded sibling context (dozens of activity-related tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not differentiate the tool, explain what the summaries contain, or hint at the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter activity_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on its role or constraints. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond the parameter type and name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '活动分段汇总' is a Chinese translation of the tool name, adding no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'split summaries' entails or how it differs from siblings like get_activity_splits or get_activity_typed_splits. The purpose remains vague and reliant on the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity_splits, get_activity_typed_splits, or get_activity_detail. The context of activity splits is implied but not explicitly steered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the purpose and does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output characteristics. The agent cannot infer whether this tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. Every word should earn its place, but this sentence fails to convey enough information to be useful. It sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has an output schema (which might define return values), the description does not explain what gear data is returned, how it relates to the activity, or any usage context. Given the presence of many sibling tools, more detail is needed to avoid confusion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter (activity_id) with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent unaware of what type of activity ID is expected (e.g., integer, database key) or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description translates to 'Equipment used in activities,' which aligns with the tool name and implies retrieving gear associated with an activity. However, it is vague about the scope (one activity vs. all activities) and does not specify the verb beyond what the name already conveys. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as 'get_gear' for general gear information or 'get_activity' for activity details. The description does not hint at any prerequisites, alternatives, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the workout_id does not exist. The description is too minimal to convey any behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (only one phrase), but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, and this one fails to convey core purpose or usage. It does not front-load critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and a single parameter, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., full workout details) and how workout_id relates to other tools. It does not address these gaps, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter workout_id. However, the description says nothing about what workout_id represents (e.g., a unique integer identifier from get_workouts) or how to obtain it. The parameter is left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '指定训练计划详情' means 'Specify workout plan details' in Chinese, but it doesn't clearly state that the tool fetches or retrieves a workout by its ID. The verb is vague ('specify' vs 'get'), and the resource is unclear ('details' vs the entire workout). It barely distinguishes from siblings like get_workouts (which likely lists workouts) and download_workout (which downloads).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_workouts (for listing) or download_workout (for downloading). The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a valid workout_id) or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'current day respiratory data' with no details on permissions, data granularity, availability, or any side effects. This is severely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (7 Chinese characters), which is concise but at the cost of essential information. It does not earn its place because it fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection and use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the date parameter, return structure (despite an output schema existing), or give any guidance on proper usage. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'date' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description implies that without a date, today's data is returned, but it does not explain the parameter's format, allowed values, or how to specify other dates. Partial compensation, but largely missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource (respiration data) and temporal scope (current day). However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get', 'retrieve'), relying on the tool name to imply retrieval. This is moderately specific but could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools (e.g., resting_hr, spo2, stress), the description gives no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool retrieves splits but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase), which is concise but overly minimal. It is not structured with front-loaded key information and leaves out essential details. The use of Chinese may also hinder an English-speaking agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about how this tool differs from similar split tools and what exactly the output contains beyond the implied pace data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about the single parameter (activity_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'activity splits (per km/mile pace, etc.)' which gives a general idea but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_activity_typed_splits or get_activity_split_summaries. The purpose is vague without specificity about what type of splits are returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools related to splits and activities, the agent has no criteria to decide which tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. The description only mentions that returns include summaries, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether there are rate limits, or what scope (e.g., time range, user) it retrieves. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which could be concise, but it omits critical information needed for correct tool selection and usage. Brevity at the cost of completeness is not efficient; the description does not earn its place as it leaves the agent underinformed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, yet an output schema exists, the description should explain what the output contains beyond 'summary' and clarify the scope (all workouts for what user/time?). Sibling tools suggest this is part of a fitness tracker ecosystem, so more context is needed. The description is incomplete for an AI agent to decide when to call this tool versus others like get_workout_by_id or activities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document at the schema level. The description does not add any parameter semantics because there are none. A score of 3 reflects a passable baseline: no missing parameter information, but also no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '所有训练计划（含摘要）' translates to 'All training plans (with summary)', which clearly indicates the tool returns a list of workouts with summary details. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_workout_by_id (single workout) or get_workout_templates, which reduces clarity for selecting the correct tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workouts_by_id for a specific workout, or get_activities_fordate for activities instead of workouts. No usage context or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It only hints at 'original' data but fails to disclose typical behaviors like read-only nature, result format, or any side effects. Critical transparency is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing insufficient information to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and low complexity, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'original' means or how this tool relates to sibling tools. The agent receives incomplete context for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description does not mention `activity_id` or its role, adding no meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should still clarify intended usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Activity basic information (original)' identifies the resource (activity) and implies a fetch operation, but it's vague about what 'basic' and 'original' mean. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'activities' or 'activity_detail', making the purpose ambiguous though not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., 'activity_detail', 'last_activity', 'get_activity_splits'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns timezone-converted HR data, what authorization is needed, or if it modifies state. The single Chinese sentence adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied segmentation by time period.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one Chinese phrase) but is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure, front-loading of key information, or any explanation in English or the primary documentation language. It does not earn its place by providing sufficient guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema but zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and a complex sibling context, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify what data the tool returns, how it differs from 'hr_intraday' or 'get_activity', or how the timezone segmentation works. The output schema might partially compensate, but the description fails to leverage this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter 'activity_id' that has no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain the meaning or format of the parameter. The description also fails to clarify how the parameter influences the output (e.g., which heart rate data is retrieved).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is in Chinese ("活动心率分时段数据") which translates to "activity heart rate by time period data." While it indicates the tool returns heart rate data segmented by time zone/time period, it lacks an English description and does not explicitly state the verb or resource. It is not a tautology but is vague compared to sibling tools like 'hr_intraday' or 'resting_hr' that have clearer purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of alternatives such as 'hr_intraday' for intraday HR, 'resting_hr' for resting values, or 'get_activity' for general activity data. The description entirely lacks contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is returned (avg/max/min) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, handles missing dates, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a data-retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one line) and states the core purpose efficiently. However, it is underspecified; important details are missing. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose but lacks completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema (which may clarify return values), the description fails to explain parameter behavior, usage context, or differentiation from sibling tools. For a simple one-parameter tool, the description should at least cover the date parameter and typical use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'date' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its format, default behavior (null probably means today), or whether it is required. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving daily stress score (average, max, min). It specifies the resource (stress score) and the temporal scope (daily). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'get_weekly_stress'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as 'get_weekly_stress' or 'user_summary' are not referenced, leaving the agent without decision-support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, whether data is aggregated or raw, any authentication requirements, or return format. The tool returns daily steps for a range, but traits like pagination, data granularity, or performance limits are omitted. This leaves significant behavioral unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, at just one phrase. While it is concise, it is overly terse and lacks important context. It front-loads the resource name but does not earn its place fully because it omits critical usage and parameter details. A 3 reflects that it is minimally adequate but too sparse for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema but no annotations, and the tool has 2 untyped parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but description says nothing), nor does it provide usage context. For a health tracking tool among many siblings, a more thorough description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters ('start', 'end') with 0% description coverage. The description mentions '指定日期范围' (specified date range) which implies these are dates, but does not state format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), default values, or whether they are inclusive. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful details beyond vague date range context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '每日步数 — 指定日期范围的每日步数' which means 'Daily steps — daily steps for a specified date range.' This clearly identifies the resource (daily steps) and the action (retrieve). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'steps_data', 'get_weekly_steps', which also provide step data. The lack of sibling differentiation prevents a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'steps_data' or 'get_weekly_steps'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name, which is insufficient for correct selection among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool retrieves but does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, whether it requires specific authentication, what happens if the activity_id does not exist, or aspects like rate limiting or pagination. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a data retrieval operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is concise. However, it is not structured with front-loaded important information; it just states the function. It could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about the required parameter. It is not verbose, but also not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (context signals) but no documentation on its return value or behavior, the description should provide at least a hint about the output structure. The description does not explain the return value, nor does it clarify the scope of 'exercise sets' (e.g., whether it includes weight, reps, etc.). For a tool with one required parameter and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter 'activity_id' (type integer) has no description in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning about what this parameter represents (e.g., the specific activity ID format or constraints). The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent without clarity on how to use the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '力量训练活动的动作组' roughly translates to 'exercise sets of strength training activities', which clarifies that the tool retrieves sets (groups of reps) for a strength training activity. It provides a specific verb ('get') and resource ('exercise sets'), but fails to distinguish from siblings like 'get_activity_splits' or 'get_activity_detail' which might also return structured activity data. The description is brief and offers no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no guidance on whether to use this vs. 'get_activity_splits' for strength training activities. The context signals show many sibling tools, yet no exclusions or context are provided. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only says 'progress summary' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it aggregates data, returns percentages or raw values, handles missing dates, or if it requires authentication or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that aggregates data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence. It is concise, but it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity. The structure is front-loaded with the key concept 'progress summary.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks sufficient context about what 'progress summary' means (e.g., trend, percentage, difference). With no behavioral transparency or parameter guidance, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'two dates' and 'metric' but does not specify the format of start_date and end_date, the allowed values for metric (beyond a default of 'steps'), or what happens if dates are null. With 3 parameters and no enums, the description adds minimal meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '进度摘要' (progress summary) implies a summary of progress, but the specific verb 'get' is clear and the resource 'progress summary between dates' is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools, many of which also deal with health metrics over time. A score of 3 reflects a vague but not misleading purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the over 40 sibling tools, many of which likely track similar metrics (e.g., daily_steps, weekly_steps, stats_trend). The description does not provide any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, the scope of aggregation (e.g., across all activities or per day), or any return format details. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the key action ('weekly intensity minute aggregation'). It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly expanded to cover param format or usage guidance without becoming lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a weekly aggregation tool with 2 params and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output contains, how to interpret the data, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have activity data logged). The tool lacks annotations, so the description should provide more completeness about the tool's functionality and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the two parameters (end_date, start_date). The description mentions 'two dates start and end' but does not specify format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), required vs optional, or the meaning of the dates relative to each other. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema-level param descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'weekly intensity minute aggregation (requires two dates start and end)', which clearly identifies the resource (intensity minutes) and operation (aggregation) with a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate it from siblings like get_weekly_steps or get_weekly_stress, making it unclear when to use this over similar weekly aggregation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that two dates are needed but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_weekly_steps or other weekly health tools. It lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context, and no alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term '聚合' (aggregation) hints at read-only aggregation, but this is ambiguous. The return format (output schema exists) is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 characters in Chinese plus a period), which is concise. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is front-loaded but contains no actionable detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. The output schema could provide return structure, but the description doesn't mention what the output contains. The sibling 'stress' likely competes, but no differentiation is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does not explain the meanings of 'weeks' (number of weeks to aggregate) or 'end_date' (format, purpose). Defaults are provided in the schema but without context. The output schema exists but is not leveraged.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '每周压力聚合' (weekly stress aggregation) implies the tool retrieves aggregated stress data over a week. However, it's vague—it doesn't specify a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' in the description, and it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'stress', which likely provides raw or daily stress data. The purpose is inferable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stress', 'weekly_steps', or 'weekly_intensity_minutes'. There is no mention of prerequisites, date range limitations, or comparison to sibling tools. The agent must guess the tool's role from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behaviors. It only states the output (predicted results) but does not explain how predictions are derived, what input data is needed (e.g., historical runs, VO2max), or the meaning of the start and end parameters. The agent is left guessing about side effects, data requirements, or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short—a single line—which is concise. However, it provides only the barest information and lacks structure (e.g., parameter descriptions, usage examples). It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema but zero schema coverage for parameters, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics and usage context. It does not. The tool has many siblings, yet no differentiation or guidance is provided. The description is far from complete for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 start and end parameters. The agent has no semantic hints about what these string fields represent (e.g., date range, race names, distance filters). This is a critical gap for a tool with two undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides predicted race times for 5K, 10K, half marathon, and full marathon. This gives a specific verb (predict) and resource (race times). The purpose is clear and distinct from siblings like vo2max or get_endurance_score. However, the description is in Chinese, which may reduce clarity for non-Chinese agents, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as personal_record or get_endurance_score. It does not mention prerequisites, required data, or typical use cases. An agent would have to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are missing entirely, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether data availability depends on device support, what happens if no data exists for the date, or any rate limits. 'Retrieves current day' implies fresh data, but no context about real-time vs historical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence; no wasted words. However, while concise, it lacks clarity and completeness. The use of Chinese '当日' without English translation reduces accessibility for English-prompting agents. A slightly longer but clearer sentence would be more effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, a 1-param schema (0% coverage), no behavior disclosure, and an output schema present but no description of what it returns, the tool is underdocumented. The agent cannot confidently determine data format, units (percentage), or error handling from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 1 parameter (date) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the date parameter at all—its format (YYYY-MM-DD?), default behavior (today if omitted?), or relationship to '当日'. For a single-optional-parameter tool, the description should clearly document that omitting date returns today's data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool name is 'spo2' but description uses Chinese to indicate it retrieves SpO2 data for the current day. This clarifies the resource (blood oxygen saturation) and scope (当日, i.e., current date). However, '当日' is ambiguous—does it mean today or the date passed in the parameter? Also, the tool title is null, so the description is the sole source of purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like hrv, respiration, resting_hr, but not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs others like hrv, respiration, or resting_hr. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., requires a device that measures SpO2), or alternative tools for other time ranges or aggregated data. The description simply states the data is for '当日' without clarifying if the date parameter overrides this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how the 'date' parameter affects results, or any computation specifics. The description only lists output fields, leaving behavioral characteristics opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes redundancy ('训练状态' appears twice). While it is front-loaded, the repetition wastes an opportunity to add useful information. Overall, it is adequately sized but not maximally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists key output metrics, which is useful, but given the tool has a parameter and no annotations, it should explain how 'date' is used and provide usage context. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but parameter semantics and behavioral context are missing, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one 'date' parameter with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. Without any explanation of what 'date' means, its format, or default behavior, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description lists the tool's primary outputs (training status, ACWR, monthly load composition, VO2Max), which clarifies what the tool provides and distinguishes it from siblings like training_readiness and vo2max. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and repeats the tool name, so it is clear but not maximally precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply lists outputs without contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must self-disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation querying data by date range but offers no details on data format, units, possible null returns, permissions needed, or impact of invalid dates. As a health tool returning potentially sensitive data, this omission is problematic. Score reflects insufficient disclosure for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short—just one sentence with the Chinese translation and a brief purpose. It is front-loaded with the key concept and avoids fluff. While extremely concise, it sacrifices necessary details, so it earns a 4 rather than 5. Is efficient but incomplete for the reasons cited in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool has 2 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It defines what the tool does and its temporal scope, which is helpful, but leaves out parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema partially reduces the burden for return values, but the description still falls short on key aspect for an unannotated tool. Score 3 reflects minimal viability with significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists two string parameters (start, end) with no descriptions, types (e.g., date format), or enums, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only says '指定日期范围' (specified date range), providing minimal clarity that start and end likely define a date range. No details on expected format (YYYY-MM-DD? ISO 8601?) or behavior when only one is provided. With zero schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description translates the name 'body_battery' as '身体电量' and states it is for body battery on a current or specified date range. It clearly identifies the resource (body battery) and scope (date range), slightly differentiating from sibling tools that cover other metrics like sleep, stress, or HRV. However, it's vague about what 'body battery' actually represents (e.g., a score, chart, levels), so the purpose is clear but lacks specificity for a health metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sleep, stress, or HRV, which are closely related to body battery. With many sibling tools covering overlapping health data, the lack of usage context or selection criteria is a major gap. A score of 2 reflects the absence of any usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool retrieves, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, if it requires authentication, how it handles missing data, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. It is not wasteful, but it lacks structure such as front-loading the most critical details. With only one sentence, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to clarify key concepts like 'default sports association' or how the parameter affects results. The tool is simple (1 optional param), so the description is barely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the sole parameter 'include_stats'. The parameter exists in the schema with a default, but the description adds zero value beyond the schema. This is a serious gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all equipment under the account, including default sports associations. It is specific about the resource and scope. However, it does not distinguish it from the sibling 'get_activity_gear' which likely filters by activity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activity_gear'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context about when it should or should not be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The output schema exists but is not described. The description offers no additional behavioral context beyond the tool name. Score 1: no disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, efficient and front-loaded. No wasted words, but it could be expanded to improve clarity. It is concise, though some structure (e.g., separating purpose from parameter hints) would help. Score 4: concise but could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema. The description is very minimal and does not explain what a goal is, the return format, or any nuances. The output schema may provide some completeness, but without seeing it, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. Score 2: incomplete given the lack of other context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'goal_type' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'active/future/past' which hints at the possible values, partially compensating for the missing schema description. However, it does not explain the meaning of each value or the effect on results. Given the low coverage, this is useful information beyond the schema. Score 4: adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Garmin 目标（active/future/past）' identifies the resource (goals) and hints at possible filtering by type. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., list, retrieve) and is not in English, which may reduce clarity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, but since no other tool mentions goals, it is somewhat unique. Score 3: adequate but not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many health-related retrievals, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information. Score 2: no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only says 'aggregate' without explaining if it sums or averages, what timezone the end_date uses, what happens if end_date is null, or if data is read-only. For a health data tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 characters in Chinese), which is concise but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the core idea but lacks structure. Every sentence—actually, every word—must earn its place, and this one does not provide enough context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and only 2 optional parameters, the description is too sparse to be complete. For a tool with siblings like 'daily_steps' and 'steps_data', the agent needs to understand the weekly aggregation nuance. The current description leaves the agent guessing about return format, edge cases, and parameter dependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning for both parameters. The description does not mention 'weeks' (number of weeks to aggregate) or 'end_date' (the boundary date) at all. The agent must infer their roles from names alone, risking misuse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '每周步数聚合' translates to 'weekly steps aggregation', which clearly conveys the verb (aggregate) and resource (weekly steps). It helps distinguish from sibling tools like 'daily_steps' or 'steps_data', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate by scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'daily_steps' or 'steps_data'. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent gets no help choosing among the many step-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions output values. It does not explain what happens when the optional 'date' parameter is provided versus omitted, or whether authentication or permissions are required. The term '当日' (current day) may conflict with the schema allowing a date parameter, creating ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase—which is efficient but omits critical details. It earns points for brevity but loses for not providing enough information to stand alone.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description's mention of two key outputs (current day and seven-day average) provides a basic understanding. However, missing parameter documentation and lack of behavioral context leaves the agent with an incomplete picture for confident selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional parameter 'date' with no description, and the tool description adds no information about its meaning, format, or impact on results. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain how to use the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides HRV values for the current day and a seven-day average, specifying the resource (HRV) and the output scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like resting_hr or hr_intraday, which focus on heart rate or intraday data. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for other dates or compare with similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool (e.g., resting_hr, user_summary) would be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it provides step details but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, if it can fail due to lack of data for a date, or what the rate limits are. Returns a 'StepsData' object, but no further behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase that is front-loaded and efficient. It contains no extraneous information, but it is minimal to the point of omitting necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is an output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), the description is too brief to fully inform the agent. It lacks context on the optional parameter behavior, the nature of the step detail (e.g., hourly breakdown?), and how it differs from similar tools. For a simple, single-parameter tool, it is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema's property 'date' has no description. The tool's description does not clarify the 'date' parameter format, accepted date ranges, or default behavior when omitted. Since there is only one optional parameter, the description offers no added meaning beyond 'a date string', so the agent is left to infer. Baseline is 3 due to 0% coverage but low parameter count.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '步数详情 — 当日步数明细' translates to 'Step details — same day step details', clearly indicating it returns step details for a specific day. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'daily_steps', which likely also provides step data, lowering the clarity score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'daily_steps' or 'get_weekly_steps'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses that data is thinned to 24-hour averages to avoid context overflow, but it omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. While it efficiently conveys the core idea, it could be improved by front-loading the purpose and adding brief parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description leaves out crucial context about the input parameter and the tool's scope among many health siblings. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for a user to confidently use it without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'date' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, such as date format, required/optional, or default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides intraday heart rate data, sampled to 24 hourly averages, which distinguishes it from siblings like resting_hr or hrv. The verb is implied (retrieve/sample) and the resource is specific (heart rate intraday).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resting_hr, hrv, or stress. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states what data is returned without explaining access requirements, default date handling, data range limitations, or whether the tool is read-only. This is inadequate for a tool that likely requires authentication and has implicit date behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (two phrases) with no extraneous content. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. A slightly longer description with structured information would be more effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to complement it. For a tool with one optional parameter and many siblings, the description should clarify expected output format, units, and behavior when no date is specified. The current text provides almost no contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value. '当日饮水量' implies a daily scope, but does not clarify the expected date format, default value when omitted (likely today), or any constraints. The single parameter's meaning remains ambiguous beyond what the schema's title 'Date' provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '水分摄入 — 当日饮水量' clearly indicates the tool provides daily water intake data, which distinguishes it from siblings focused on other metrics like sleep, steps, or weight. The purpose is specific but the lack of an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve') slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools covering various health metrics, the agent receives no context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 does not disclose whether this tool is read-only, whether it requires any specific data to be present, or any side effects. For a tool returning derived metrics, the lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single phrase to convey the core purpose. It front-loads the key idea and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by using a complete sentence for clarity in multilingual contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. The tool has only one required parameter, making it relatively simple. However, the description lacks differentiation from many siblings (e.g., 'get_hill_score', 'get_endurance_score') and provides no constraints or prerequisites, leaving the agent partially informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool has one required parameter ('activity_id'). The description does not explain what 'activity_id' refers to or how to obtain it. Although the tool context implies it relates to an activity, the agent receives no explicit guidance beyond the schema type. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Training effect of activity (aerobic/anaerobic training load)' clearly identifies the output resource and its subcategories. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_activity' (raw data) and 'training_status' (overall status) by specifying the training load aspect. However, the verb is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'training_readiness', 'get_endurance_score', or 'get_lactate_threshold'. The description does not state preconditions (e.g., activity must have recorded heart rate) or exclude cases where training effect may be unavailable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose that the tool is a read operation (likely non-destructive), what side effects (if any) occur, or any constraints like data freshness. The word 'summary' hints at returned content but lacks behavioral specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase). While it is concise, it sacrifices informativeness. It could include more context (e.g., 'Provides a brief summary of the most recent workout') without harming conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place; this single sentence barely does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description still needs to orient the agent about the output's nature. '摘要' (summary) is minimal. The agent is left guessing what fields the summary contains. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%. For a parameterless tool, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '最后一次活动 — 最近一次运动的摘要' which translates to 'last activity — summary of the most recent exercise'. It identifies the resource (last activity) and a verb (summary implied), but 'summary' is vague. Among many sibling tools like activity_detail, activities, and get_activity, it does not clearly differentiate its scope or level of detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., for a quick overview vs. detailed breakdown). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool retrieves records but does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, how pagination or limits work, or what happens if no data exists in the range. The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence fragment), which is concise but at the cost of important details. It lacks any structure such as use cases, parameter hints, or behavioral notes. While brevity is valued, the description would benefit from one or two more sentences to add context without becoming lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The context signals indicate a high-complexity environment with 56 sibling tools, and the tool has no required parameters and no schema description coverage. Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse to help an agent select and invoke this tool correctly among many similar ones. More information about date format, data granularity, and result structure is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 2 parameters (start, end), and the schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter semantics. However, the tool's purpose (weight records by date range) strongly implies that start and end define the date range, so a baseline of 3 is reasonable given the clear context from the description and sibling tool patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is in Chinese and states the tool provides weight records within a specified date range, using a clear verb-resource pairing. It is specific about the resource (weight records) and the temporal scope (date range), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other health metrics like sleep, stress, or heart rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (for retrieving weight data over a date range) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling health tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the user must have a device that tracks weight or if the tool only works for certain date formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and output format, omitting behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether the operation is read-only. The concise phrase does not address these critical aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase) and front-loaded with the action. It is concise but lacks structure—no sentences, no breakdown of key details. While it's not verbose, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, presence of an output schema, and many sibling tools, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format beyond the phrase, nor does it cover constraints (e.g., only for own workouts, size limits). An agent may lack enough context to use the tool correctly in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. While 'workout_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool should clarify what constitutes a valid ID (e.g., from get_workouts) or any constraints. The description falls short of compensating for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('download'), resource ('workout plan'), and output format ('FIT file (base64)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workout_by_id or get_workout_templates, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a raw FIT file is needed versus structured JSON data. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core function; it does not mention any behavioral traits such as date format expectations, timezone handling, pagination, sorting, limits, or error behaviors. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single short sentence—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word is functional, with no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting important details; it could be restructured to include more context while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has only one parameter and outputs a list (output schema exists but is not shown), the description should still cover key details like date format, what constitutes an activity, and any limitations. The current description is too sparse to support reliable agent decisions, especially compared to sibling tools with richer descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the 'date' parameter has no description in the schema). The description adds basic meaning by specifying that the date parameter is for selecting which day's activities to list. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), default value (none, not required), or constraints. This partial compensation raises the score to 3 but is not fully informative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '指定某一天的活动中列表' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a list of activities for a specified day. The verb is implied (list/get) and the resource (activities) and scope (a specific date) are identifiable, distinguishing it from siblings like 'activities' (which may list all activities without date filtering) and 'get_activity' (single activity). However, the phrasing is slightly ambiguous and lacks specificity about what 'activities' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the tool name and description mentioning 'for date', implying it should be used to filter activities by date. Among many activity-related siblings (e.g., 'activities', 'count_activities', 'get_activity'), there is no mention of trade-offs or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the content (templates) but does not state whether reading these templates modifies anything, whether network requests are made, or how large the template list is. Since there are no params, the agent cannot know if any scoping or filtering exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence in Chinese, approximately 20 characters. It conveys the core purpose without fluff. For an LLM agent, the conciseness is good, though the language choice may slightly hinder readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and an output schema exists (providing structure for the return value), the description is adequate. It names the resource type (JSON templates) and specific plan categories. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, which would be helpful for behavioral clarity. The output schema covers the response format, so return value details are not needed in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (there is nothing to describe). The baseline score for 0-param tools is 4 according to guidelines. The description does add context about what the templates contain (simple run, intervals, tempo, strength circuits), which is valuable beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '常用训练计划 JSON 模板库（简单跑/间歇/节奏/力量循环）' indicates the tool provides JSON templates for common training plans including easy run, intervals, tempo, and strength circuits. This specifies a resource (templates) and categories, but uses a Chinese language description which may reduce clarity for English-speaking LLM agents. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workouts' which likely retrieve actual workout data, not templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage recommendations or exclusions are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'get_workouts' or 'get_activity_types'. The agent must infer usage from the resource category ('templates' vs actual data).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet only states that it returns a daily value. It discloses no additional behavioral traits such as input validation, response shape, or any side effects. The phrase 'value for the day' hints at a scalar result but leaves many behavioral aspects unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single dash-separated phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the metric name followed by clarifying detail, but it is arguably too terse to fully support use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and a single optional parameter, the description does not provide enough context beyond the basic function. The presence of an output schema is unknown to us but the description alone is insufficient for robust use. It fails to cover likely edge cases or clarify the meaning of the date parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description connects the date parameter to a specific day via '当日', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain format, default behavior, or what happens for invalid dates. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides the resting heart rate value for a given day, making its core purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling metrics like hr_intraday by specifying '当日' (that day) as the scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name to infer action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided; the description does not explain when to choose this over alternative health metrics. It only implies it is for daily resting heart rate, but without exclusions or alternatives, an agent has little basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool that likely reads data, the minimal description fails to clarify its behavior beyond the return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and concise, consisting of a single noun phrase. It conveys the essential purpose without extraneous text. While it could be structured as a full sentence, it is not wasteful for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not specify what distances are included or whether it covers all sports. An agent might need to infer from the output schema, but the description alone is slightly ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it could have explained the scope of distances or sports. It is adequate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides personal records (best times for each distance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'race_predictions' (which predicts future times) and 'activities' (which lists general activity data). However, it lacks a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify if it returns all-time bests, seasonal records, or records for a specific sport. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 explains the tool returns three parallel sequences and notes behavioral nuance: Garmin defines different 'week start' for the three metrics, hence separate listing. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if data is missing for some weeks, rate limits, or authorization needs. The 'score lower is better' comment for pressure adds some transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured with a clear bullet list of the three sequences, followed by default values and a note. Every sentence adds value. The only slight issue is the Chinese language might reduce readability for multilingual agents, but for a Chinese-targeted tool this is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not detail return values. It explains the three sequences and the week-start issue well. However, it does not explain what happens when end is provided vs. not (e.g., inclusive/exclusive), how weeks interact with end, or what error scenarios exist. For a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is minimally adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema), so the description must compensate. It explains 'weeks' defaults to 8 and 'end' is the end date (blank=today), which adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default. However, it does not describe the format of 'end' (expected string format like 'YYYY-MM-DD'), nor validate against other parameters, leaving ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the tool retrieves recent N weeks of health aggregation trends across three parallel sequences (intensity minutes, steps, average pressure). It distinguishes the tool's purpose clearly from siblings like get_weekly_steps, get_weekly_stress, get_weekly_intensity_minutes which likely return single-metric series, whereas this tool aggregates multiple metrics. However, the description is in Chinese, which may limit clarity for non-Chinese speaking agents, slightly reducing the score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions default weeks (8) and that end date can be left blank for today, providing basic usage context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_weekly_steps or stats_trend, nor provide exclusions or prerequisites. The note about different week-start days across Garmin metrics is helpful but doesn't guide selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool returns, but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a parameterless getter, the description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase in Chinese, which is concise. However, it is not structured (no sentences, no whitespace) and could benefit from being in English for broader agent comprehension. It earns its place but is slightly under-specified for a global audience.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is adequate for a simple enumeration tool. It tells the agent what it returns. The context of sibling tools implies this is a reference list, which is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. The description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '所有可用运动类型' (all available activity types) clearly states the tool returns a list of activity types. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_activity (which retrieves details for a specific activity) and activity_detail (which provides detailed info). The verb 'get' is implied but the resource is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. For example, it does not say 'use this to discover available activity types before creating an activity' or 'this is a read-only catalog lookup.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool returns sleep duration, stages, and a score, giving a reasonable behavioral outline. However, it doesn't disclose whether the data is from a specific source or if there are rate limits or caching behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information (sleep details) and lists the included metrics. No excess words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema likely describing return structure. The description covers the return fields well but fails to document the input parameter or provide any context on date range defaults.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not mention the 'date' parameter or its format/meaning, so it adds almost no value beyond the schema. The parameter remains entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves sleep details including total duration, sleep stages (deep/light/REM/awake), and a score. This is a specific verb+resource combo that distinguishes it from siblings like 'resting_hr' or 'hrv'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying sleep data but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., stats_trend for aggregated sleep stats). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic purpose and parameter hints. It does not disclose whether the list is comprehensive or paginated, what date format is expected, whether the operation is read-only, or any authentication/rate-limit constraints. The description is too minimal to give an AI agent adequate behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information (list, date range, type filter) is front-loaded. However, it is terse and lacks structured sections (e.g., purpose vs. usage). For a non-English description, it may be less accessible to some agents, but it achieves high information density with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters (none required), an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description needs to provide enough context for correct invocation. It covers basic purpose and parameter hints but omits details like pagination, ordering, return format (beyond what output schema gives), and how to differentiate from similar tools like 'get_activities_fordate' or 'activity_detail'. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the overall completeness is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by associating 'start' and 'end' with the date range, and 'activity_type' with the parenthetical examples (running/cycling). However, it does not specify date format (e.g., ISO 8601), whether activity_type accepts multiple values, or that all parameters are optional. The partial compensation earns a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description translates to 'Activity list — activities within a specified date range (running/cycling etc.)', which clearly states the tool's verb (list), resource (activities), and scope (date range, optional type filter). Among siblings like 'get_activity' (singular) or 'count_activities', this tool is uniquely described as a list operation, making its purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to list activities within a date range) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. For example, it does not mention that 'get_activity' is for a single activity detail or that 'count_activities' is for counting. Without exclusions or alternatives, usage is only inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 discloses the automatic fallback to recent 7 days, which is key behavioral information. However, it omits other important traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the estimate is based on specific activity types.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key concept (最大摄氧量) and immediately adds the fallback rule. It is efficient and avoids verbosity, though the localization might reduce clarity for non-Chinese readers.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple GET operation. However, it lacks guidance on parameter format and usage context, which are needed for an agent to invoke it without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'date' parameter refers to the requested day and fallback behavior, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), whether null means today, or any constraints. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to supply the parameter correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the resource (VO2Max) and the action (估値/estimate), and adds the auto-backtrack behavior for the last 7 days when no data exists. This distinguishes it from sibling health metric tools like resting_hr, hrv, etc., making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (training_status, fitnessage data, etc.), the agent receives no help in deciding when vo2max is the right choice or what prerequisites (e.g., device data) might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists metrics included and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a presumably safe read operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single optional parameter and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on the date parameter's role and does not fully differentiate from the numerous sibling tools. It is complete only for a very basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'date' parameter. While '每日' (daily) hints at a date context, it does not specify format, default behavior (null likely means today), or allowed values. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a daily summary of steps, heart rate, stress, VO2Max, training load, etc. This is a specific verb+resource combination ('用户每日摘要' = user daily summary) and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for a composite overview of multiple metrics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like calling individual metric tools (e.g., steps_data, stress, vo2max). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 discloses the data source (China Weather Network) and key behavioral outputs (running heat assessment, pace ratio), which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the tool caches data, latency expectations, or any rate limits, which would be valuable for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and output, then adding details on data fields, source, and usage. Every sentence adds value except possibly the last sentence which partially repeats the first sentence's intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (one param, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what data is returned, the use case, and the input format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, so this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter (city), the description compensates by stating it supports city names or 9-digit city codes, and providing a default of '成都'. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema, but the description does not explain the format of the city code or give examples, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides real-time weather data including temperature, humidity, WBGT, etc., and specifically adds running heat stress assessment and pace reduction ratio. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools, though it doesn't contrast with similar weather-focused siblings like weather_forecast or weather_at.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to use this tool before running to judge if planned pace is feasible, which gives clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to avoid it or suggest alternatives among the 50+ sibling tools, missing an opportunity to differentiate from weather_forecast or weather_at.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description indicates that the tool returns detailed activity data including per-kilometer pace and heart rate zones. It does not disclose whether mutations occur (the name 'detail' suggests read-only, but is not explicit), what happens with missing data, or any authentication requirements. The output schema could clarify return structure, but the description should still convey non-obvious behaviors like if it returns time-series data or aggregates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 1 clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the resource name and provides examples of data included. It could be slightly more efficient by stating the English translation but remains effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (which can explain return fields), the description need not enumerate all return values. It covers the key unique selling points (per-kilometer pace, heart rate zones) that differentiate it from siblings. With one required parameter and no nested objects, the description is reasonably complete for distinguishing this tool from the many sibling activity tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'activity_id'. The description compensates by stating it provides detailed data for a '指定活动' (specific activity), which implies that 'activity_id' identifies the activity. However, it does not add details on the format or source of the ID. Given only one parameter and strong contextual implication, this is mostly adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses Chinese to state '指定活动的详细数据（逐公里配速、心率分段等）', which translates to 'detailed data for a specific activity (per-kilometer pace, heart rate zones, etc.)'. The verb is implicit but clear from context ('detailed data' indicates retrieval). It specifies the resource ('指定活动的详细数据' for a specific activity) and gives examples of the data it returns (pace and heart rate breakdowns), distinguishing it from simpler activity retrieval tools like 'get_activity' and 'get_activity_splits'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_activity' (basic info) or 'get_activity_splits' (just splits). It implicitly positions itself as providing 'detailed data' with specific examples (pace and heart rate segments), which hints at use cases for in-depth performance analysis, but it lacks explicit guidance on exclusion or when a simpler tool would suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'trend' and lists metrics, but does not explain what the trend output looks like (e.g., averages, daily values), whether it is read-only, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does (multi-day trend of multiple metrics). It omits details like the format of the trend, but the output schema can fill that gap. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds value by linking 'days' to '近 N 天' (last N days), clarifying the parameter's role. However, it does not explain the range, default, or effect of different values on the output. It meets the minimum compensation but not more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a multi-day trend overview of specific metrics (steps, sleep, resting HR, VO2Max, training status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics or single-day snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for aggregated trend viewing over N days, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or guidance on choosing between this and individual metric tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool archives to a local log and notes that the official source retains only 24 hours, implying data might be lost if not called daily. However, it does not reveal whether the operation is irreversible, if previous logs are overwritten, or what authentication is required. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences, front-loading the main action (archive weather data) and then providing a usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. Slight dock for not being perfectly structured (no line breaks or section headers), but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple (1 param, no required params, has an output schema), the description is mostly adequate: it explains what, why, and when. However, the lack of parameter documentation and no behavioral details on what happens to old data (append vs. overwrite) or the return format (output schema exists but is not described) leaves some gaps. With a richer output schema, description needn't explain return values, but it's still incomplete for a logging operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The description does not mention the 'city' parameter at all, missing an opportunity to clarify its meaning beyond the schema. Baseline with 0% coverage and zero parameter mention is 2, but the schema provides a default value and title, partially informing the agent, so this is borderline. The tool only has one parameter, so the lack of semantic help is a moderate gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool archives hourly weather data from the past 24 hours into a local log for future training review. It distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools like weather_now and weather_forecast by focusing on archival and long-term climate review.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends calling the tool at least once daily, especially before reviewing a morning run, which gives clear usage context. It does not, however, directly contrast with alternatives like weather_at or weather_forecast, but the recommendation implies when to use it versus those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the data sources (weather station actuals and watch temperature) and the correction algorithm. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe error handling for invalid activity_ids. The behavioral traits are partially covered but not comprehensively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with a 'core' label. Every sentence contributes information about functionality, inputs, or rationale. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., explaining heat underestimation twice), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description focuses on inputs and logic without needing to detail return values. It covers the key outputs, the optional target_pace behavior, and the data sources. It lacks mention of edge cases or data availability, but for a straightforward evaluation tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains target_pace with an example and its role in completion judgment, adding semantic value. However, it does not explicitly map 'activity_id' to the tool's input or describe its type/usage, relying on the tool name and schema type. The explanation is helpful but not fully explicit for both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's core purpose: combining a run with actual climate data for evaluation. It specifies outputs (actual pace, temperature/humidity, heat stress level, and equivalent pace under cool conditions) and explains the optional target_pace usage. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_activity_weather (raw weather) and weather_pace (general pace adjustment) by linking to a specific activity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (e.g., to avoid underestimating effort on hot/humid days) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as get_activity_weather or weather_pace. It provides context for the correction logic but lacks direct 'when to use versus' guidance, leaving agents to infer appropriateness from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the two modes and the input format for pace. However, it does not disclose the output format, any side effects, or whether the tool is read-only. Since it's a calculator, the lack of output description is a gap, though an output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear overall statement followed by bullet-point explanations of modes and pace format. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The structure is efficient, though could be slightly more organized (e.g., separate sections for parameters).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description explains the core function and two modes but omits details on temp_c and humidity parameters. The pace format clarification is helpful. The output schema might cover return values, but the description itself is incomplete for a fully informed agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the mode parameter's values and the pace parameter's supported formats. However, it does not describe the temp_c and humidity parameters (e.g., units, valid ranges). Two of four parameters are left undocumented, which is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a temperature/humidity and pace converter, with two distinct modes (adjust and normalize) that cover specific use cases. It uses a strong verb ('换算器' meaning converter) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools which provide raw data, not calculations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each mode: adjust for converting target pace from cool to hot/humid conditions, normalize for converting actual pace back to equivalent cool conditions. This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or explicitly compare to sibling tools like weather_now or garmin_run_conditions, so it's not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 stating it returns a total count, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase that earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the return type (total count) and the scope (account). The output schema will handle the exact return structure, so no further description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying the purpose, which is beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '账户内活动总数' (total number of activities in the account) clearly states the verb (count) and resource (activities). It distinguishes from siblings like 'activities' (which likely lists activities) and 'activity_detail' (which gives details of a single activity).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools including many activity-related ones, there is no indication of when to retrieve a count versus listing or detailing activities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: data sources, time range limitations, and dependency on local logs. It does not mention read-only nature or rate limits, but the provided details are substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences. The first states purpose and output fields, the second gives the parameter format, and the third explains data sources and limitations. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers data sources, time constraints, and the 'when' format. However, it omits the 'city' parameter and does not explicitly state that the tool is a read-only operation, which would be helpful without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must document both parameters. It explicitly describes the 'when' format but never mentions the 'city' parameter, which has a default but is not explained. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries historical weather conditions at a specified time, listing specific fields (temperature, humidity, dew point, heat stress). It is distinct from siblings like weather_now and weather_forecast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the required format for the 'when' parameter and explains data source limitations (official API only 24 hours, local logs needed for earlier times). It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly exclude alternative weather tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns 3-hourly data, daily overview, max 7 days, and explicitly states humidity is not included. Lacks mention of error handling but is otherwise transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loads the main output, then states use case, then limitation and alternative. Every sentence is valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists) and the sibling context, the description fully covers return content, use case, limitations, and alternatives. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the time granularity (every 3 hours) and the max days constraint, giving context for the 'days' parameter. City parameter is not elaborated but is basic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries future weather forecasts with 3-hourly details (temperature, weather, wind), daily overview, and daily best training window, distinguishing it from siblings like real-time tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (arranging weekly training schedule, avoiding rain/heat) and when not to use (precise pace adjustment in humid seasons), directing to alternatives weather_now/weather_at.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/flyyata/garmin-china'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server