garmin_steps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does confirm this is a read-only daily-metric summary and discloses the derived outputs (percentage of goal, longest streak). It says nothing about pagination, timezone handling, or behavior when no goal is set, which is a real gap for a metric 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and followed by the derived metrics. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the essential outputs (daily steps, goal percentage, streak). The only missing piece is guidance on the undocumented 'days' parameter and usage context.

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 0% for the single 'days' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies a day-range scan but never states the parameter name, its default of 14, or acceptable bounds, leaving that entirely to the schema title.

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 metric (daily step count) plus the derived analytics it returns (goal attainment, streaks). It is clearly distinct from siblings like garmin_activities or garmin_intensity_minutes, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating alternative the way a 5 would.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the default 14-day window in prose, and no routing to alternatives such as garmin_trends or garmin_today. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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