garmin_floors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that output is daily and includes an ascent/descent breakdown; it says nothing about the default lookback window behavior, data freshness, or whether values are totals vs per-day, and never confirms the read-only nature of the call.

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?

A single compact sentence with the metric front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing parameter and usage guidance rather than deliberate economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the metric itself is simple. However, with no annotations and an undocumented 'days' argument, the definition is thin for even a simple tool — the agent lacks the query-window and usage context it needs.

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 sole parameter 'days' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all; 'Daily' implies a granularity but does not explain what the days argument controls. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating text, the description leaves the agent guessing about the query window.

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?

States a specific resource (floors climbed) and adds scope (daily, vs goal, ascent/descent breakdown), which distinguishes it from adjacent metrics like garmin_steps or garmin_hill_score. It never uses a verb, but the noun phrase is unambiguous about what data the tool returns.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the many similar metric siblings (garmin_steps, garmin_hill_score, garmin_goals). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the metric name.

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