garmin_intensity_minutes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does add real domain behavior: vigorous minutes count double per WHO guidelines, and it reports goal attainment. It does not disclose data source, freshness, or permissions, but the metric semantics it explains are genuinely useful context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, with no filler. Efficient and readable, though the second sentence's parenthetical could be integrated more tightly.

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 explained, and the metric semantics are covered. However, the unexplained 'days' parameter and absence of usage context leave gaps for a tool in a very large sibling set.

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 lone parameter 'days' (default 30) is not mentioned in the description and has 0% schema description coverage. There is even a mild tension between the description's 'weekly' framing and a 'days' window parameter, which the description does not reconcile.

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 states a specific resource (intensity minutes) and its key metric (weekly totals vs WHO's 150 min/week), which clearly separates it from siblings like garmin_steps or garmin_calories. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the read-only nature and subject matter are unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as garmin_week_summary, garmin_trends, or garmin_training_load. No prerequisites or context for choosing this tool are provided.

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