garmin_whats_changed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context: it scans all metrics, filters to statistically significant changes, ranks safety-first, and returns 'nothing notable' when nothing tripped. This goes beyond the minimal safety profile without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage triggers and followed by behavioral details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or 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 single optional parameter, read-only annotations, an output schema, and a clear purpose, the description covers all essential context. It also provides a fallback behavior and a pointer to a sibling tool, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed metadata for since_days (default, min, max). The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema fully documents it. This matches the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool scans every tracked metric and returns only statistically significant changes, ranked safety-first. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that today's readiness is handled by garmin_brief, making its purpose unique.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use via trigger phrases ('anything I should know?', 'what's new?', 'catch me up', 'after days away') and mentions garmin_brief as an alternative for readiness. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, stopping just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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