garmin_log

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses important downstream effects: the data 'feeds sRPE load and caps the readiness verdict.' It also explains the flag lifecycle ('set flag; resolve when healed'), adding behavioral context far beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first phrase. Every sentence adds value: field enumeration, downstream consequences, and a specific interaction guideline. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an 11-parameter, presumably write-oriented tool, the description covers what to log, the exact scales, the flag lifecycle, the effect on load/readiness, and when to prompt for missing data. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description stands well alongside sibling tools.

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?

Despite the very low schema description coverage (9%), the description compensates thoroughly by enumerating all key parameters with their scales: RPE 1-10, Hooper wellness dimensions (fatigue, soreness, stress, mood, sleep quality) each 1-7, notes, and flags. It also clarifies the resolve_flag behavior and the expected values for wellness parameters.

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 opens with 'Subjective data the watch cannot capture,' clearly identifying the tool's resource and scope: logging RPE, Hooper wellness, notes, and flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with objective watch-captured data, and names concrete fields with ranges.

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 gives explicit guidance for when to log RPE ('Ask for RPE after discussing a session if missing') and when to set/resolve illness or injury flags. It implies the tool is for subjective data only, which differentiates it from objective sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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