get_steps

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

The description states the tool returns step counts with total and average, implying a read operation. However, with no annotations provided, it omits details such as whether data sync is required, if values are automatically gathered, or any rate limits. It covers the basic behavior but not the full operational context.

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 brief and front-loaded: two sentences for purpose and summary, then a clear args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics. It could add a note about data source or units, but overall it is sufficiently complete for safe use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing explicit examples for 'period' like 'last 7 days' or date ranges, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and default. This enables an agent to construct valid calls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'daily step counts over a period, with the total and daily average.' The verb 'get' and resource 'steps' are unambiguous, and the purpose distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_daily_summary' or 'get_activity_splits' which cover different metrics.

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 examples for the 'period' argument but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over others (e.g., when needing raw steps vs. a summary). It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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