garmin_list_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the listing is limited to read-only methods runnable through `garmin_call` and includes each method's parameters and description, which tells the agent what metadata it will receive.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the discovery use case with examples follows immediately.

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 single optional parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and when to reach for it. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that results should then be invoked via `garmin_call`, but that relationship is already stated.

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?

There is exactly one optional parameter (`query`) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself providing a concrete example ('sleep' or 'training'). The description does not mention the query filter at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists read-only Garmin Connect data methods runnable with `garmin_call`, each with parameters and description. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many dedicated `get_*` siblings by framing itself as the discovery mechanism for data lacking a dedicated 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?

Explicitly says to use it to discover data without a dedicated tool and names representative domains (golf, nutrition, gear, ECG, women's health, calendar, courses). The alternative path is implied by the existence of dedicated tools, though it doesn't spell out 'if a dedicated tool exists, use that instead' as a hard rule.

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