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. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the incremental sync mechanism ('only fetches data newer than the last sync'), first-sync behavior ('fetches the specified number of days of history'), and the tool's effect ('stores it in SQLite for fast offline queries'). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the sync behavior, details parameters, and clarifies usage guidelines. There is no redundant or wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (sync operation with incremental behavior), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and distinguishes from siblings. The output schema likely details the 'summary of records synced per data type', so the description doesn't need to explain return values further.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'data_types' options ('all', 'body', 'sleep', 'activity', 'workouts'), format ('comma-separated for multiple'), and default ('all'); and 'days' purpose ('Days of history for first sync'), default (30), and behavior on subsequent syncs ('Ignored on subsequent syncs'). This adds substantial meaning 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 ('sync', 'fetches', 'stores') and resources ('Withings health data', 'local cache', 'SQLite'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by stating it's for syncing data to cache before using the 'withings_get_*' tools for querying, making the differentiation clear and specific.

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 ('Run this before using other withings_get_* tools') and when not to use it ('Not for querying data - use withings_get_body, withings_get_sleep, withings_get_activity, or withings_get_workouts instead'). It names specific alternatives and clarifies the tool's role in the workflow, offering comprehensive usage instructions.

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