fitbit_get_goals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Live-only (no caching)' which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention idempotency, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (though the tool name suggests goals are read). Adding a brief note about read-only nature would improve transparency.

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?

The description is concise (5 sentences) with no redundant information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, parameter details, and return structure. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return keys, mentions weekly omission, and links to a sibling tool. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could briefly mention the output schema or pagination if applicable.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains the 'period' parameter with allowed values 'daily' or 'weekly' and its default, adding meaning beyond the schema which only provides a default and type. This adequately compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get user-set activity goals for steps, distance, calories, etc.' It specifies the resource (user-set activity goals) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool fitbit_get_activity by mentioning comparison of actuals against targets.

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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool in conjunction with fitbit_get_activity: 'Use to compare actuals ... against the targets'. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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