get_steps_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals a Garmin-specific 28-day cap for daily granularity and states default date ranges, but omits return format, pagination, and any auth or rate-limit constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key granularity constraint and default. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no 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?

For a simple read tool with three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, defaults, and a critical timeout-like cap. It could mention the return shape, but it is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds one meaningful constraint not present in the schema: daily granularity caps the span at 28 days. The default values it restates are largely redundant with the schema.

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 states a clear resource and scope: step totals over a date range, with daily or weekly granularity. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_daily_health or get_training, but the purpose is understandable without further inference.

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?

It explains granularity options and defaults, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_daily_health or get_training. There are no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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