garmin_weekly_health

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.