withings-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It explains the caching behavior ('Returns individual workout sessions from the local cache by default'), the need for synchronization ('Run withings_sync first to populate the cache'), and the live fetch option. It also describes the return format and sorting behavior. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions or rate limits.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, then explains behavioral context, provides parameter details in a clear 'Args' section, and ends with return format and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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's complexity (4 parameters, caching behavior, sibling differentiation) and the presence of an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to detail return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, parameter semantics, and sibling relationships effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 4 parameters. It explains date formats ('YYYY-MM-DD', 'YYYY-MM', or '90d'), defaults ('Default: last 90 days', 'Default: today'), filtering behavior ('Case-insensitive partial match'), and the purpose of the 'live' parameter. This adds significant value 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get workout sessions') and resources ('workout sessions with type, duration, HR, calories'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'withings_get_activity' by stating 'Not for daily step/activity totals -- use withings_get_activity,' providing clear differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'Run withings_sync first to populate the cache' for default behavior and 'Not for daily step/activity totals -- use withings_get_activity' for sibling differentiation. It also explains when to use the 'live' parameter for API fetching versus cache usage.

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