garmin_connection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, setting a safety baseline. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is checked (session existence and last sync time), which is more specific than the annotations alone. No contradiction exists, and the description enriches understanding of the tool's non-mutating behavior.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Check whether...'), avoiding any wasted words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no required fields, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the core purpose well. However, the unexplained 'verify' parameter and the lack of mention of the return format (though output schema exists) leave a minor completeness gap.

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 one optional boolean parameter 'verify' with default false and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention 'verify' at all, failing to explain its purpose or effect, such as whether it forces a live check. This is a significant gap for a single parameter.

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 checks whether a Garmin session exists and when data was last synchronized, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Garmin session'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_sync (which performs synchronization) and garmin_get_day (which retrieves day data), making its purpose unambiguous.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list offers context but the description itself does not direct the agent toward the appropriate use case.

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