garmin_today

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the composition of the snapshot, which is useful, but says nothing about that it is a read-only aggregate, whether it hits live API versus cache, latency, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines contents, the second defines role and call priority. Front-loaded with the payload summary, zero filler.

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 the description is not obliged to describe return values, and it correctly focuses on scope and role instead. It is nearly complete for a zero-param aggregate, with the only residual gap being the absence of any behavioral/operational detail (cache vs live, permissions) that no annotation supplies.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly does not invent or misdescribe any inputs.

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?

Specific verb-and-resource framing ('Complete snapshot of today's health') with an explicit enumeration of the six data categories it returns (daily summary, sleep, training readiness, HRV, body battery, latest activity). That is enough to distinguish it as an aggregate rollup. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with near-neighbour siblings like garmin_health_summary or garmin_health_snapshot, whose names imply overlapping scope.

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?

Gives clear usage direction: 'Ideal as conversation context — call this first to ground any health question.' That tells the agent both when to reach for it (session grounding / open-ended health questions) and its priority relative to other tools. It stops short of naming an alternative or an exclusion (e.g. when to prefer a focused tool like garmin_hrv or garmin_sleep instead).

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