garmin_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses what the tool checks (auth state, last sync, cached data coverage), but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what happens on failure. The phrase 'check' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core action ('Check connector health'), followed by specifics. Every word adds value; the directive 'Call this first in a session' is pragmatic and concise. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description is complete enough for a zero-parameter status tool. It enumerates what is covered and gives session-level usage context. An output schema exists, so return values are handled by the schema. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention if any state changes occur, but given the output schema and simple nature, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already conveys all parameter information. The description adds value by explaining the scope of the status check (rounds, shots, GPS %, club %), which is not directly in the schema. No parameter documentation is needed, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: checking connector health including Garmin auth state, last sync, and cached data coverage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sync_garmin_data (which performs syncing) and data retrieval tools by focusing on health and session-first usage.

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 explicitly says to call this tool first in a session, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the timing instruction is a strong usage guideline that differentiates this tool from its siblings.

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