fitbit_get_goals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Live-only (no caching)' and 'Weekly omits some fields', which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It doesn't cover error handling or authentication, but for a read operation it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, parameter definition, return keys, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the tool has one optional param and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output shape, and even ties it to a sibling tool for comparison. This is a complete, self-contained definition for an agent.

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%, but the description compensates fully: it states period accepts 'daily' or 'weekly', defaults to 'daily', and explains the behavioral effect ('Weekly omits some fields'). This adds value well beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get user-set activity goals' with specific fields like steps, distance, calories, and explicitly contrasts with fitbit_get_activity for actuals. The verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes this from the 17 sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to compare actuals (from fitbit_get_activity) against the targets the user set' and mentions 'Live-only (no caching)'. This gives clear when-to-use context and names a specific alternative tool, satisfying the dimension fully.

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