garmin_week

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the report's contents, including conditional plan compliance "where a plan exists," which helps the agent set expectations for the response.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and content list, followed by usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With a read-only annotation, simple optional parameter fully described in the schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: content, usage, and alternatives. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema description for anchor_date is complete ("YYYY-MM-DD, its Mon-Sun week"), providing full parameter semantics. The description reinforces the idea of a specific week but doesn't add new format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool reports one week in session-level detail, enumerating specific content: load vs recent weeks, intensity distribution, per-day session table with activity_ids, recovery summary, and plan compliance. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings, especially garmin_load, which it explicitly names for multi-week trajectories.

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 explicit usage guidance: "Call for 'how was my week' or a specific week," and also gives a clear alternative: "Multi-week trajectory is garmin_load." This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and when to use a different one.

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