Garmin Connect MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: cursor-based pagination and that it returns activities with pagination metadata and resource URIs. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'recent' entails beyond the 'days_back' parameter. This is adequate but leaves gaps in 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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core functionality ('Get recent running activities with cursor-based pagination') and follow with return details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the main action and pagination behavior but lacks details on output format (beyond high-level mentions), error cases, or integration with siblings. Without an output schema, more elaboration on return values would be beneficial, but it's minimally viable.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'cursor' usage in more detail or 'days_back' implications). It mentions pagination generally, but this is already implied by the schema's cursor parameter description.

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 purpose: 'Get recent running activities with cursor-based pagination.' It specifies the resource (running activities) and key behavior (pagination). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_paginated_activities' or 'get_activities_for_date,' which reduces it from a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pagination and returning activities, but doesn't specify context like 'use this for general recent activities' or contrast with siblings such as 'get_activities_for_date' for date-specific queries or 'get_paginated_activities' for broader pagination. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility.

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