garmin_goals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read by saying 'current progress'. It does not say whether goals are user-scoped, whether completed/expired goals are excluded, or whether any auth is needed. Minimal disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short sentence is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool and wastes no words. However, it is a bare noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of action, so brevity here reflects under-specification as much as 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 values need not be spelled out, and with zero parameters the surface area is small. Still, the description omits any indication of scope (single user, time window, active-only filtering) that an agent would need to trust the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

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 phrase names the resource ('active fitness goals') and what is returned ('their current progress'), but has no verb and never states that this is a retrieval operation. Against a sibling list full of similarly named Garmin data endpoints, an agent can infer the domain but gets no explicit action.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives such as garmin_challenges or garmin_training_status, and no prerequisites or date-scoping note. The description offers no guidance beyond the label itself.

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