custom_garmin_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'advanced users' hinting at complexity, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (though 'authenticate_garmin' is a sibling), rate limits, error handling, or what types of endpoints are supported. The description is too minimal to inform safe or effective use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. However, the 'advanced users' qualifier is somewhat vague and doesn't add actionable value, slightly reducing conciseness. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more precise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a custom API request tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or provide context on how to construct valid requests. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (method, endpoint, data, params). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as endpoint examples or data format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Make custom API requests to Garmin Connect' which provides a verb ('Make custom API requests') and resource ('Garmin Connect'), but it's vague about what specific operations are possible. It distinguishes from siblings by being a generic request tool versus specific operations like 'get_activities' or 'create_running_workout', but the 'advanced users' qualifier adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools. It mentions 'advanced users' which implies complexity but doesn't specify scenarios where custom requests are necessary or preferable over the dedicated tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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