garmin_week_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the exact metric set and the goal-comparison framing, but says nothing about data freshness/sync requirements, permissions, or that the time window is fixed (no range override).

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 with no waste; the core scope (current week, totals vs goals) is front-loaded and the second sentence only adds the metric enumeration that the reader needs.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope and metric coverage adequately. The remaining gap is routing context - nothing tells the agent why to pick this over garmin_today, garmin_health_summary, or garmin_trends.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by scoping everything to the current week, and adds nothing misleading about parameterization.

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 and scope: the current week's health totals versus goals, with a per-day breakdown, and enumerates the four metrics covered. It is clearly distinguishable from daily tools like garmin_today by its weekly rollup framing, but it never explicitly names or contrasts a sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'current week' scope - an agent can infer this is the weekly rollup tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as garmin_today, garmin_trends, or the per-metric tools (garmin_steps, garmin_floors, garmin_calories).

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