garmin_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool checks connection status and identifies the connected account, which are the key behaviors. It also implies authentication verification. Though it doesn't discuss error scenarios or side effects, the tool is simple and non-mutating, so the disclosure is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is extremely simple: zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values don't need to be explained). The description covers both what it does and when to use it, making it complete for this complexity level.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema correctly reflects that. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is in line with that.

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's function with specific verbs ('check', 'show') and resources ('Garmin connection', 'account'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on data retrieval and workout management, making it obvious this is a connection/authentication status tool.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool first before other tools to confirm authentication. While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the 'use this first' directive provides clear contextual guidance, differentiating it from the rest of the suite.

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