Garmin Connect MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v4.5.8
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping functionality, such as get_steps, get_daily_steps, get_steps_data, get_user_summary, and get_health_metrics all providing step data. Similarly, multiple tools for badges (get_earned_badges, get_available_badges, get_in_progress_badges, get_available_badge_challenges, get_badge_challenges, get_non_completed_badge_challenges) create confusion about which to use for a given need. The descriptions help somewhat, but the vast number of comparable tools makes misselection likely.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get, create, delete, update, download, upload, schedule, unschedule, set, add, remove, link, clear, check, request, analyze, compare). Minor deviations exist like 'request_reload' and 'setup_credentials' but overall the pattern is predictable. The consistency is strong despite the large number of tools.
Tool Count2/5
With 109 tools, this server is heavily over-scoped. While the Garmin domain is broad, the proliferation of tools for every possible metric (steps, heart rate, stress, respiration, SpO2, body battery, HRV, etc.) results in significant redundancy and makes the server unwieldy. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., a single get_health_data function). The count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range and feels excessive for coherence.
Completeness4/5
The server covers an extensive range of Garmin Connect functionality: activity management, health metrics, workouts, gear, badges, challenges, training plans, and device management. CRUD operations exist for workouts, gear, weigh-ins, and blood pressure. Minor gaps like editing activities' weather or handling sleep stages in more detail are not critical. The breadth is impressive, though the completeness is somewhat compromised by the complexity of choosing the right tool.
Average 3.8/5 across 107 of 109 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 59 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state safety. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the content of the data (VO2 max and related fitness data), such as aggregation, date range behavior, or return format. This is minimal added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is too vague about what 'max metrics' includes and how it differs from many similar getters like get_health_metrics or get_fitness_stats. It does not clarify the return structure or the meaning of 'related fitness data', leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the date parameter with a regex pattern and description, and the tool description adds nothing extra about parameters. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description's omission is acceptable, earning a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get max metrics including VO2 max and related fitness data' providing a clear verb and resource, and names a specific metric (VO2 max). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_health_metrics or get_fitness_stats, leaving the scope ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided; there is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries less burden, but it adds no behavioral context beyond those hints. It does not explain side effects, whether activities can be overwritten, authentication needs, or what happens after creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it mostly restates the title with only the small addition of 'manual activity entry in Garmin Connect.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create-type tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable because the schema covers inputs and annotations flag mutability. However, it lacks information about return behavior, constraints, or integration context, making it incomplete for richer decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description with units or format where appropriate. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents all fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly says 'Create a manual activity entry in Garmin Connect,' using a specific verb and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from 'upload_activity' by specifying a manual entry, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'create_workout' or 'upload_activity.' The word 'manual' implies hand-entered data, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate that this is a read-only operation (readOnlyHint: true) and openWorldHint: true, meaning the result set may be incomplete. The description does not contradict these annotations, and the description does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not explain what happens if weather data is unavailable for an activity, but with openWorldHint, that may be implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that directly states what it does. It is front-loaded and every word is essential. No fluff, just the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the returned weather conditions look like, what units they might be in, or any potential limitations. Given the openWorldHint, the description could mention that weather data may not exist for all activities or the format of the response. It feels incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has full coverage (100%) with a clear description for activityId. The description adds little beyond the schema, just stating 'weather conditions during an activity' which somewhat aligns with the parameter, but it does not explain the semantics of the output or how activityId is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states that the tool gets weather conditions during an activity, which is clear and uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather during an activity'). However, it does not specify that the weather is associated with an activity ID, which is the main input, and it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_activity_details' or 'get_activity_hr_zones', but it is unique enough in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when weather data might be available or how it relates to activity details. It is implied that it is used to fetch weather for a given activity, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not mention side effects, performance, or any caveats, relying entirely on the annotations for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about what constitutes 'ad-hoc challenges' and what 'history' entails (e.g., date range, challenge types). This ambiguity could lead to incorrect usage, especially given numerous similar getter tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('ad-hoc challenges history'), identifying a specific type of data. It distinguishes from other getters by focusing on 'ad-hoc challenges', though the meaning of 'ad-hoc' is not elaborated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as contrasting with other challenge-related getters or specifying typical scenarios. It only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose. It does not mention return format, units, availability, or limitations, so it contributes no information beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and scannable, though it sacrifices some useful contextual richness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only getter with annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: the agent knows the date is required and the tool returns resting heart rate for that day. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and does not describe the expected return value or units.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the date parameter already has its own format and requirement description. The tool description's 'for a specific day' does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get resting heart rate for a specific day,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and temporal scope. It is not tautological, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_heart_rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The only implicit cue is 'for a specific day,' which is already evident from the required date parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of side effects, partial update semantics, or impact on linked activities.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise and readable, though it is also sparse and does not add much information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive update tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter semantics and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not explain update semantics or prerequisites beyond what is already in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including the combined brand/model behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing gear/equipment details'), making the action unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from read tools like get_all_gear and destructive tools like delete_gear, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_gear or get_all_gear. The only usage hint ('use get_all_gear to find it') appears in the schema's gearUUID parameter description, not in the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the behavior ('Get hill score data') and adds a performance context. The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to disclose those, but it also does not mention any additional behavioral aspects such as return format or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary wording. It is appropriately concise and does not include redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not provide sufficient context for a user to understand what 'hill score' specifically means, how it differs from other metrics, or what the return value might look like. Given the large number of sibling tools, more detail on the expected output and usage scenarios would be needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides clear descriptions for both startDate and endDate, covering their format and optionality. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline score for high schema coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves hill score data and adds context by mentioning climbing/vertical performance. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic data retrieval, though it could be more precise about the exact nature of the hill score metric.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar 'get_' tools. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or how it relates to other metrics like progress summary or daily summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover safe read behavior and lack of filters. The description adds minimal context ('summary/snapshot') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, aggregation, or time range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'summary/snapshot' includes, such as data fields or time period. It does not, leaving the agent to guess. While the simplicity helps, the lack of detail makes it incomplete for informed tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the schema covers 100% of nothing. No additional parameter semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves pregnancy tracking summary/snapshot data, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling getters by the unique 'pregnancy' domain, though 'summary/snapshot' is somewhat vague about exact contents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_progress_summary or get_daily_summary. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain what 'available' excludes, whether the result is user-specific, or what kind of response shape to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is concise and appropriately brief for a parameterless read-only getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is thin: it does not define what badge challenges are, what 'available' excludes, how the result differs from badges, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_available_badge_challenges and get_non_completed_badge_challenges. The simple schema helps, but the sibling context creates ambiguity that this description does not resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description cannot meaningfully clarify parameter meaning. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific resource ('badge challenges') and a specific verb ('get'), with 'available' as a useful qualifier. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as get_available_badge_challenges and get_adhoc_challenges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no exclusions relative to sibling tools. With several badge- and challenge-related getters, an agent cannot tell when this tool is preferable to nearby alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the returned 'detailed information' includes nested objects, links, or any special handling. The openWorldHint is not explained either.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id operation with a single required parameter and read-only annotation, the description is adequately functional. However, it lacks information about the return format (no output schema exists) and could benefit from clarifying that this is for a single plan, contrasting with a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'planId' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific training plan. The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific training plan' make the purpose clear, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_training_plans' (plural).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_training_plans' or other training-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid planId, nor any scenarios where this should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as data source, refresh behavior, or what the score represents beyond a simple interpretation. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, but the description does not clarify what the returned score looks like (e.g., range, type, interpretation). Given there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully covers the single optional 'date' parameter with pattern and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('training readiness score') along with its meaning ('how prepared your body is for training'). This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_training_status' or 'get_training_load'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the metric name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral transparency beyond the tool name. Even with the destructiveHint annotation present, the description does not explain whether an existing blood pressure reading is overwritten, what data is affected, or whether any confirmation or errors are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy, efficiently stating the action and object. It earns its place by plainly communicating the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description and schema allow for basic invocation but full operational context is missing: it does not state whether the tool replaces an existing value, what a response looks like, or when this action is appropriate relative to other health-metric tools. Since there is no output schema, the description must carry more of this context, and it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all five param types, units, and required flags, giving the agent sufficient parameter-level detail. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear action verb ('record') and a specific resource ('a blood pressure reading'), distinguishing it from the sibling get_blood_pressure and delete_blood_pressure. It is not a perfect 5 because it omits scope details such as the reading being tied to a timestamp or user, though the schema partially covers those.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_blood_pressure or create_manual_activity. The verb 'record' implies the intended use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-to-avoid, or mention of related write tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: trueable. The description adds nothing beyond what the annotation already conveys—it just says delete. It doesn't mention irreversibility, scope (e.g., does it affect scheduled instances?), or other side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description provides no additional 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, one sentence. No fluff. Could add more info but structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete with one parameter, the description covers the action but lacks details on effects (e.g., if it also removes scheduled occurrences, auth needed). With destructiveHint present, some context is implicit, but no extra info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the only parameter with a description (`workoutId` - 'The unique workout identifier (required)'). The description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is concise and specific: 'Delete a workout from Garmin Connect.' It clearly identifies the verb (delete) and the resource (workout), and differentiates from sibling tools like delete_activity or delete_gear_collection, which target other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this vs. alternatives like unschedule_workout or update_workout. The description simply states the action without any context about prerequisites, consequences, or alternative tools for when a workout should be removed from a schedule rather than permanently deleted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond 'get all available', such as whether results are exhaustive, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The openWorldHint might imply limited scope, but it's not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, directly stating the operation. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context: no output format, no mention of pagination or limits, no differentiation from get_training_plan_by_id, and no indication of whether it requires any preconditions. With no output schema and openWorldHint annotation, the agent gets minimal guidance on what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parametersable, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter-related meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves all available training plans. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_training_plan_by_id', which could cause ambiguity about whether this returns a list or single item. The plural
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_training_plan_by_id or get_training_status. It doesn't mention any filtering, pagination, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with possibly unpredictable results. Description adds minimal context beyond that, just stating 'Get all comments'. It does not disclose any potential side effects, auth requirements, or that the list might be empty with openWorldHint. Credit is given because annotations cover the safety profile, but the description provides little extra behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler. All words are necessary. Front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (1 param), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what it does, but lacks details on return format or potential edge cases. For a simple read tool, it's sufficient but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'activityId', with a clear description. The tool description does not add semantic meaning beyond what schema provides; it just mentions the activity. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool gets all comments on an activity, with a specific verb 'get' and resource 'comments on an activity'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_all_day_events' or 'get_activity_details', but the resource is specific enough. It is clear but lacks differentiation from other comment-related tools (if any).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an activity ID that corresponds to an existing activity, or whether comments are available for all activity types. It does not specify situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that the score is derived from training load, but it lacks specifics about time windows, parameter effects, or return characteristics, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly communicates what the tool does without any filler or redundant phrasing. It is highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context: the term 'recent training load' is vague, and the role of the optional date parameter is unclear. With no output schema, more detail about the expected result or time window would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the single parameter 'date' is self-explanatory (including the YYYY-MM-DD format), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('endurance score'), and adds a meaningful basis ('based on recent training load'), giving the tool a clear scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling get_* metric tools beyond the metric name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_training_load, get_load_ratio, or get_performance_condition. The description only restates the core function without contextualizing appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the word 'aggregated', implying it returns a summary rather than individual records, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits (like output format or pagination), but given the simple nature and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is no redundancy or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only three parameters and a clear schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks any indication of what the aggregated summary output looks like (e.g., a single value, breakdown by day). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more specificity would help, but it is not critical for such a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter (startDate, endDate, metric) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('aggregated progress summary'), qualified by 'between two dates'. It is not a tautology and gives a specific purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_daily_summary or get_user_summary, which may also provide summary-like data, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for date-range aggregation or suggest any alternative tools for different needs. There is no context about typical use cases or exclusions, matching the 'no guidance' case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context about what may be overwritten, whether entry is idempotent, or what happens on negative values. It contributes no information beyond what the schema and title already state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple, the description omits behavioral details such as success/error semantics, whether adding on the same date overrides existing data, and the implications of the destructiveHint annotation. The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not fully compensate for the absence of an output schema or broader operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The description merely restates the unit (milliliters) and the resource name, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('hydration/water intake data') plus the unit (milliliters). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_hydration and other add tools like add_weigh_in.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the user should call this when adding hydration data. However, there is no explicit statement about when not to use it, no mention of how it differs from get_hydration, and no alternatives are suggested.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction. The `destructiveHint` annotation is set to true, implying destructive or potentially data-destructive behavior, but the description says only that it 'creates a new gear collection' and never mentions such behavior. The description is directly inconsistent with the annotation, giving the agent confusing guidance about the tool's effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that immediately convey purpose, examples, and required fields. It avoids filler and is well-written for an agent scanning a long tool list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the disruptive watermark annotations declare destructive and open-world behavior, the description should mention these implications, but it does not. It also omits mention of the optional `activityTypes` parameter and gives no indication of what the tool returns on success, leaving the agent under-informed about the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already clearly documented (including the YYYY-MM-DD pattern). The description adds no new layer semantics beyond restating that name and firstUseDate are required, so the score stays at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Create a new gear collection,' a specific verb+resource, and includes a purpose ('group equipment used together') with illustrative examples like running kit and bike components. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as update_gear_collection, delete_gear_collection, and get_gear_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context, such as grouping related equipment, and explicitly states required inputs ('Requires a name and first use date'). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or point to alternatives like update_gear_collection for editing existing collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'available...to join' semantics and does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or any additional side effects; this is acceptable but not enriching.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and only a minimal description, leaving the return format undefined. Given the large sibling set with overlapping concepts like get_available_badges, get_badge_challenges, and get_in_progress_badges, the description does not sufficiently explain what 'available badge challenges' means or how this tool differs from those alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (limit, start) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('available badge challenges') with a clear intent ('to join'). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping sibling tools like get_badge_challenges or get_available_badges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'to join' implies the tool is for retrieving challenges the user can participate in, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many badge/challenge-related siblings, this is only minimally helpful for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds only the UUID requirement, which is about input rather than behavior. It does not contradict annotations but also doesn't provide additional 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the action, and the second provides a necessary note. It is well-structured and front-loaded without any unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the schema covers inputs thoroughly. The description implies the return is a list of activities, which is reasonable given the name and purpose. It doesn't elaborate on output format, but for a straightforward get operation, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves activities filtered by a specific gear, which is a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough given the name and context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite note (requires gear UUID) but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on scenarios or comparisons with other gear-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already convey that this is a read-only tool with no expected side effects. The description consistently says 'Get', so it does not contradict the annotations; however, it adds little novel behavioral information beyond the metric's semantics. No return format or pagination behavior is disclosed, but these are not essential given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately states what the tool does and what the ratio represents. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with one required parameter and a heavily covered schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's core function. It lacks details such as reference thresholds or expected typical output, but given the simplicity and the guidance from the annotations, the overall context is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, date, is fully documented in the input schema with a format pattern and a required note, providing 100% schema description coverage. The description itself does not need to repeat parameter details and adds no extra meaning beyond the already explicit date requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a strong verb and a specific resource: 'Get acute/chronic workload ratio'. It also briefly mentions its purpose ('training balance and injury risk'), which clarifies the metric. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_training_load or get_training_status, but the metric name is sufficiently distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_training_status, get_training_load, or get_performance_condition. The phrase 'indicating training balance and injury risk' provides only a vague implied use case, not concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already declare that this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'information about the primary training device and device priorities,' but this is more about scope than behavior. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., return format, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed, so it doesn't significantly exceed the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It contains no fluff or redundant wording. Every word adds value, specifying the subject (primary training device) and an additional aspect (priorities). This is a model of efficient description writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but vague. It doesn't specify what 'information' is returned (e.g., device ID, name, fitness level) or clarify what 'device priorities' means. The absence of an output schema makes the description the primary source of true return value knowledge, and this description leaves that ambiguous. For a read-only, no-argument tool, more specificity about the output would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties. Per the calibration rules, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't complicate matters. The description's mention of 'information' and 'device priorities' gives slight context about what to expect from the invocation, but since there are no arguments, this dimension is inherently satisfied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Get information about the primary training device and device priorities.' This is a specific verb (Get) and resource (primary training device), and it adds 'device priorities' to distinguish from generic device tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_devices or get_device_settings, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools, even though siblings like get_devices and get_device_settings exist. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which cover the main safety behavior. The description adds minimal added behavioral context beyond mentioning 'restless moments,' but it does not contradict or introduce hidden side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, though adding a usage note would make it even more valuable without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one input parameter and is read-only, so the scope is simple. However, there is no output schema and the description gives limited detail about what the response will contain beyond movement data and restless moments, which leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of parameters and the required 'date' parameter already has a pattern and description in the schema. The tool description does not explain overlap or usage, but the schema itself handles the semantic burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'movement data during sleep including restless moments.' This differentiates it from broader sleep tools like get_sleep_data and aligns with the tool name without being redundant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus available alternatives, such as get_sleep_data, heart rate, or stress data tools. It provides no selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, reducing the burden. The description adds that it returns a total step count, but does not disclose edge cases like invalid dates or zero-data behavior. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains zero fluff. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the action, input scope, and return value. The only missing context (default date) is already in the schema, so no critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, fully documenting the 'date' parameter with pattern and default. The description adds no extra semantics beyond aligning with 'specific date', so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and resource (step count) with a scope (specific date). It distinguishes from generic step functions but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_steps_data or get_daily_steps, which may serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for a specific date but does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as date-range methods, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds the date-scoping constraint ('for a specific date') which is beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what 'comprehensive' includes beyond a few metrics, nor does it mention any limitations or edge cases (e.g., missing data for a date). With annotations handling the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes a non-exhaustive list of metrics. No filler or redundancy. Perfectly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by naming the type of data returned (steps, calories, distance, active minutes). However, 'and more' is vague, and with many sibling tools, a bit more specificity about the scope (e.g., all activity data for that date, or only specific metrics) would improve completeness. Still, for a straightforward getter, it covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'date' parameter has a pattern and description). The description reinforces that the parameter is a specific date. It adds no additional format details or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is justified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a comprehensive user activity summary for a specific date, listing key metrics like steps, calories, distance, and active minutes. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('user activity summary') but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_summary or get_progress_summary, which could also return similar data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. This is a notable gap given the large number of sibling tools with overlapping functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which already signals that this tool modifies data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it says 'change' which aligns with the destructive hint. It doesn't disclose any side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. Since annotations already cover the destructive nature, the description adds little extra value, but it doesn't contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly states the purpose. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. It could potentially add a bit more context, but for a simple mutation tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention that typeKey is the primary way to specify the type, nor does it clarify the optional typeId parameter. It also doesn't reference related tools like get_activity_types for discovering valid type keys. The annotations provide some context (destructiveHint), but the description could be more helpful by explaining the relationship between the two type parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (activityId, typeKey, typeId) are described in the schema. The description itself doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The schema already explains that typeKey is required and typeId is optional, and the description doesn't clarify the relationship between typeKey and typeId (e.g., which takes precedence). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change the type/category of an existing activity' clearly states the verb (change) and resource (activity type/category), and it distinguishes from siblings like set_activity_name and set_activity_privacy. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it modifies an existing activity, which is implied by 'existing' but could be more explicit about the mutation aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for changing an activity's type, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_activity_name or set_activity_privacy. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or context (e.g., needing to fetch activity types first). The sibling list includes get_activity_types, which could be a prerequisite, but the description doesn't reference it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds only the field list and a note about includeDetails, which is more about parameter semantics than behavior. This is acceptable but minimal, matching the baseline for read-only tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and returned fields, the second briefly notes the parameter effect. No filler or redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, making it simple. The description covers the essential data returned and the parameter's effect, which combined with read-only annotations gives an agent sufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides complete documentation for the single parameter includeDetails, including default behavior and response size implications. The description's mention of 'Set includeDetails for the full badge records' merely restates the schema without adding novel information. With 100% schema coverage, this is a baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all badges earned by the user', along with the specific fields returned. The word 'earned' differentiates it from related siblings like get_available_badges and get_in_progress_badges, though it does not explicitly name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_available_badges or get_in_progress_badges. The distinction is only implied by the word 'earned', with no explicit recommendations or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only and open-world intent, and the description adds useful aggregation and date-range scoping. However, it does not explain what shape the returned aggregated statistics take, whether the date range is inclusive, or how the grouping defaults behave beyond the schema documentation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence that communicates the primary action and scope without filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers the invocation parameters, and the readOnly annotation covers safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the aggregated response contains beyond the vague phrase 'fitness statistics'. This makes it minimally usable, but somewhat incomplete in a large sibling-tool context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters well: startDate, endDate, metric, and groupByActivities all have descriptions, including formats and defaults. The description adds little beyond the word 'aggregated', so it neither hurts nor meaningfully compensates beyond the schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool gets aggregate fitness statistics over a date range, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated fitness statistics'). It does not fully differentiate its output from broad sibling tools like get_health_metrics or get_daily_summary, but the 'aggregated' + 'between two dates' framing provides meaningful scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is appropriate when date-bounded aggregate fitness stats are needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. It hints at context through 'aggregated' and 'between two dates' but does not give a clear usage policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds context about what HRV measures (recovery/stress), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, units, or any edge cases (e.g., missing data behavior), which would be valuable for a health metric tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the HRV explanation is concise and relevant. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose and metric meaning. However, it lacks information about what the response contains (e.g., values, units, time intervals) and any caveats about data availability, which would be helpful for a health data tool. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the date parameter is fully described with format and default behavior). The description adds the meaning of HRV but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves HRV data for a specific date and explains what HRV measures. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_heart_rate and get_stress_data by focusing on HRV specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving HRV data on a given date but doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_heart_rate or get_stress_data. The context of recovery/stress levels is mentioned, providing some guidance, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a safe read (does not mutate state) and may return broad results. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them. No additional disclosure about response format or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying the purpose. Front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and clearly names the resource. All content earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is adequate but lacks any mention of the return structure or typical usage scenarios. It's minimally sufficient but could benefit from noting what data fields are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the date parameter is fully described with format and required status. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the tool works for a specific date, which aligns with the baseline 3 when schema covers all parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves menstrual cycle data for a specific date, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinct from siblings since no other sibling mentions menstrual data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar get_* tools targeting date-specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving menstrual data for a specific date, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when broader cycle summaries are needed. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the date parameter context and the list of metrics returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential latency or that the training status might be composite, but given annotations, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists the main data points efficiently, without unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could be to separate the metric list, but it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple read operation with one optional parameter, a single-sentence description suffices. The annotations cover safety and openness, and the parameter schema fully explains the input. No output schema is present, but the described output fields give a clear picture of what the agent can expect. It lacks explicit note on default to today, but the schema provides that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one parameter (date) with 100% description coverage in the schema itself. The description mentions 'for a date' but doesn't add details beyond the schema's default to today. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra semantic value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'training status', and enumerates key data points (status, feedback phrase, VO2 max, fitness trend, loads, ACWR). It distinguishes from siblings like get_training_load and get_load_ratio by mentioning those specific metrics, but doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving overall training status for a date, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this over related tools like get_training_load or get_load_ratio. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, though the context of sibling tools hints at differences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which already signals that this operation modifies data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it says 'change the name' which implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, such as whether the change is permanent, whether it affects other data, or if there are any constraints (e.g., name uniqueness). With the annotation already covering the destructive nature, the description adds little extra value, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'Change the name of an existing activity.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no wasted wording. It earns its place by being clear and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and the schema covers the parameters. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects or prerequisites (e.g., the activity must exist), but that is implied by 'existing activity'. The annotations provide the destructive hint, so the description is complete enough for a simple mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage: both parameters (activityId and name) are described with 'The unique activity identifier' and 'New name for the activity'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is fully descriptive, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't clarify any format or constraints (e.g., name length), but the schema already covers the basics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change the name of an existing activity.' It uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('activity name'), and it distinguishes from siblings like set_activity_type and set_activity_privacy, which modify other attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a mutation operation, but the destructiveHint annotation covers that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it's for renaming an existing activity, so it should be used when the user wants to change an activity's name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools, it's clear that set_activity_type and set_activity_privacy are for other modifications. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided, so it's adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the analysis covers trends, volume, and patterns, but it does not disclose specifics such as aggregation method, data sources, or whether results are exhaustive, which would add value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two well-documented parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context by naming the analysis dimensions: trends, volume, and patterns. It could be more explicit about the return format, but the annotations and schema cover the remaining essential context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both startDate and endDate already described with format and required status. The description only restates the date-range concept and does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs analysis of training trends, volume, and patterns over a date range, using a specific verb-noun structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_training_status, get_training_load, or get_progress_summary, which also relate to training analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for date-range-based training analysis, giving some contextual guidance. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools for narrower or different training queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds content details (splits, HR zones, GPS) but does not disclose potential behavioral nuances like payload size, error conditions, or authentication requirements. With annotations providing baseline safety, the added context is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description helps by listing example content, but it does not exhaustively enumerate all possible fields. For a tool that likely returns a substantial dataset, this is a minor gap. However, given the simple input and clear intent, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter (activityId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the semantic burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving detailed information about a specific activity, with explicit examples of data types (splits, heart rate zones, GPS data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual data categories (e.g., get_activity_splits, get_activity_hr_zones).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific activity sub-tools available among siblings. It implies comprehensiveness but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of empty results, error conditions, or differences from similar endpoints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, simple read operation), the description is adequate. It states the resource and context clearly, though it could note behavior for non-strength activities. Overall, it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter activityId, including its type and description. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation ('Get') and the specific resource ('exercise sets'), and scopes it to 'a strength training activity.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_activity_splits or get_activity_details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for strength training activities but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. It relies on the tool name and context to convey intended usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, which signal a safe read operation and possibly that return values are not exhaustive. The description adds the date-range scoping but does not disclose any other behaviors like rate limits, data availability, or whether readings are aggregated. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value beyond what is already known.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose clearly and is well-structured for quick reading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (two parameters, no output schema, and annotations confirming read-only), the description is minimally sufficient to understand the tool's function. It lacks details like return format or data granularity, but the annotations and schema cover most basics. For a simple read tool, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (startDate and endDate) with pattern and format information. The description mentions 'date range' but adds no extra semantic details beyond the schema, such as inclusive/exclusive boundaries or timezone handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get blood pressure readings for a date range.' It clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (blood pressure readings), and scope (date range). It distinguishes from siblings like set_blood_pressure and delete_blood_pressure by indicating it's a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it differs from other health metrics tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is used to retrieve blood pressure data within a specified date range, which is clear context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives (e.g., using get_health_metrics for broader metrics). The sibling list includes many similar get_* tools, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or return format, but such details are partially in the schema. With annotations covering safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. It is highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description minimally states the purpose. It lacks an explicit mention of the return type (list of courses) but that is implied. Given the low complexity and presence of annotations, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters (limit and start) with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, with >80% schema coverage, baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get saved routes/courses from Garmin Connect.' which specifies the action (get) and the resource (saved routes/courses), distinguishing it from other get_* tools that focus on different data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus other get_* tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description needs only to add context beyond those. It adds that metrics include heart rate and step count, but does not disclose any additional behavior like aggregation logic, latency, or limitations. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not enriching.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It specifies the returned data type (health metrics) and key examples (heart rate, step count). The lack of an exhaustive list of metrics is acceptable given the simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the date parameter (format, default), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying that the metrics are for a specific date. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves daily health metrics (heart rate, step count) for a specific date. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('health metrics'), distinguishing it from more granular siblings like get_steps or get_heart_rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that cover individual metrics (e.g., get_steps, get_heart_rate). It does not mention that this is an aggregate option, nor does it exclude cases where more specific tools would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds source and scope (scheduled/planned workouts) but does not describe pagination behavior, defaults, or ordering beyond what the schema already exposes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clear, compact sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list operation with two optional, well-documented parameters and helpful annotations, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned and the source, though it could optionally mention default pagination behavior or return ordering.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a list of scheduled/planned workouts from Garmin Connect, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related tools like get_workout_by_id or download_workout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workout_by_id or schedule_workout. The description implies its purpose but provides no exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations indicate 'openWorldHint' and 'destructiveHint', the description itself does not disclose side effects, potential impact on existing data, or any required context. It only states the action without discussing consequences or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or irrelevant details. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple upload action, but it does not mention output, error handling, or any follow-up steps. Given there is no output schema, a bit more context on expected results would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'filePath' is fully described in the schema with 'Full path to the activity file', and the description reinforces the file format expectation. Parameter coverage is 100% and meaning is unambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (upload), the resource (activity file), and the accepted formats (FIT, GPX, TCX). It is distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly retrieval or mutation operations on existing data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or scenarios where it should or should not be used. No explicit guidance on when to choose this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation that may return external data. The description adds context about the formats available, but doesn't discuss authentication or rate limits. Given the annotations, the description adds some value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no filler, front-loads the essential purpose and formats. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only 2 parameters and full schema coverage. Given the annotations and schema, the description is adequate. However, it could mention the return format or whether the download includes a raw file vs a link, but for a simple download tool, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: 'format' lists formats and default, 'activityId' is described. The description simply restates the formats in the schema, adding no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Download' and the resource 'an activity' along with the formats. It's clear and distinguishes from siblings like get_activity_details and download_workout. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource+formats make it specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description doesn't mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like download_workout or get_activity_details. It implies the use case of downloading activity data in a specific format, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnly and openWorld annotations already cover safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds context about charged/drained periods and sleep impact, which is useful, but there is no mention of potential limitations, errors, or data granularity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, consisting of three focused sentences with no redundant information or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description gives a high-level glimpse of the returned data (energy levels, charged/drained periods, sleep impact) but does not specify the format, structure, or granularity of the response. This is adequate but not highly detailed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes startDate and endDate (format, defaults). The description's mention of 'date range' adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (Body Battery energy level data). It also explains what Body Battery tracks and mentions date-range scoping, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_body_battery_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving energy level data over a date range but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar tools like get_body_battery_events. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the comparison (side-by-side fields), but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any limits beyond the schema-provided range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the count range, and the compared metrics with no filler or repetition. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only comparison tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks an explicit output/return description, but 'side by side' plus the listed metrics makes the result reasonably predictable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: activityIds is already described as an array of 2-5 activity IDs. The description reinforces the range but adds no new semantic information about parameter format or ID source beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource ('2-5 activities') and enumerates the metrics involved. This distinguishes it from single-activity tools like get_activity_details and similarity tools like find_similar_activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage: compare a set of 2-5 activities. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_activity_details or analyze_training_period, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include destructiveHint: true, which indicates the tool modifies state, but the description does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or the response format. It does not explicitly state that creating a workout will persist it in Garmin Connect or that it may overwrite an existing workout if the same name is used. The example gives no behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with an introductory sentence and a practical example. The example is not overly verbose and directly demonstrates usage. The structure is well-organized, placing the core purpose first and the example second. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the expected output or response format, which is not covered by an output schema. It also does not mention error cases, constraints (e.g., maximum number of steps), or whether the workout will be immediately visible. While the example provides a basic scenario, it does not explain how to specify repeat blocks, which the description claims to support. Thus, it is not fully complete for a tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), and sportType lists allowed values. The description's example adds significant meaning to the workoutSegments parameter, which is otherwise vaguely described as 'Array of workout segments containing steps'. The example illustrates the structure of segments and steps, filling a gap in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new structured workout'. The included example further clarifies the expected input for an interval running workout. This is a specific, unambiguous action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description indicates the tool is for creation, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like update_workout or delete_workout. The example gives a practical illustration, but no guidance on when not to use it or when a different tool is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not mention potential errors, data format, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only getter but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words or complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a clear idea of the output (time per heart rate zone) but lacks details such as units, zone definitions, or any additional context. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is mostly sufficient, though a bit more specificity could enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes activityId as 'The unique activity identifier (required)'. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter; it only reinforces that the data is tied to an activity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving time spent in each heart rate zone for an activity. It is specific and distinguishes it from other activity-related tools like get_heart_rate or get_activity_details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool is used for a specific activity (implied by 'during an activity' and the required activityId), but it does not explicitly compare it with alternatives or provide conditions for when to use it over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description does not add substantial behavioral details beyond what is already known. It does mention the type of content returned (events affecting energy), which adds some context, but it does not disclose additional traits such as data volume, pagination, or side effects. Since it doesn't contradict annotations, it earns a moderate score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying parenthetical. It contains zero redundancy and every word adds value, fully meeting conciseness and structure expectations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the type of data returned (events impacting energy) and the required input (date). While it doesn't detail output format or edge cases, the simplicity and annotation coverage support this score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter (date) with format and description, covering 100% of parameters. The description's mention of 'for a date' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no extra semantics, so this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: getting Body Battery events for a specific date, with an explicit clarification of what constitutes events (sleep, activities, naps impacting energy levels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_body_battery (which likely returns battery trends) and get_all_day_events (broader scope), fulfilling the purpose clarity requirement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (retrieving events for a date) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks conditional context that would help an agent decide between this and similar tools, leaving usage implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only and open-world, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds that the value is an estimation based on VO2 max and other metrics, but it does not explain default behavior or how the optional date influences the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It wastes no words and aligns cleanly with the tool name and title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one optional parameter, no nested objects, and a simple read-only concept, the level of detail is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any note about the return shape or expected behavior when no date is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage of the only parameter, with a clear format description. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning to the date parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get fitness age') and adds meaningful scope by indicating the estimate is based on VO2 max and other metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from the many related sibling metric tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is reasonably implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over other fitness metrics or any mention of how the optional date parameter affects usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds value by naming the included measurements, but it does not disclose behavior around missing data, timezone interpretation, or returned structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the tool intent, and no filler. The phrase 'including resting HR, max HR, and HR zones' efficiently communicates the scope of returned data.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple, has one optional date parameter, good annotations, and a clear description of returned data kinds, the information is sufficient. Lack of edge-case details like no-data behavior is a minor gap but not severe.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including the date format and default-to-today behavior. The description only lightly reinforces the date parameter and does not need to add more because the schema already carries the semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: get detailed heart rate data for a particular date, listing resting HR, max HR, and HR zones. This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like get_activity_hr_zones and get_rhr_day, which target different scope or data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for retrieving date-scoped heart rate details, which is useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_rhr_day or get_activity_hr_zones, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the critical behavioral constraint that performance condition is per-activity not daily, so the tool may return no value for a given date. This is valuable beyond annotations, helping the agent anticipate incomplete data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides useful context in a follow-up sentence. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers the key caveat about data availability. It could mention that the result may be null or unavailable, but the caveat effectively conveys this. Slightly lacking because it doesn't hint at what the score means or any units.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'date' is fully described in the schema with format and pattern. The description doesn't add extra semantics but the schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a performance condition score for a date. It also notes a key constraint: Garmin records this per activity rather than daily, so it's usually only available through get_activity_details. This differentiates it from sibling get_* tools that return other metric types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says the metric is usually only available through get_activity_details, implying users should prefer that sibling tool for per-activity data. This provides clear context for when this tool may not be useful, though it doesn't state absolute exclusions or when to use it directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint:true and openWorldHint:true; the description adds no further behavioral details such as rate limits or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise, and directly states the purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple query; the description and schema cover what it does and its parameter, and no output schema is provided, so no return format explanation is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the date parameter with format and required status; the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it retrieves step data for a specific date with detail and timestamps, distinguishing it from simpler siblings like get_daily_steps or get_activities_by_date.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives; it implies usage through its name and description but lacks comparison to similar tools like get_daily_steps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation and schema, such as ordering, pagination, or which weigh-in fields are returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word carries meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description and schema are largely sufficient. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'weigh-in records', but a note on return format could add clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both startDate and endDate. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('weigh-in records') with a date-range scope. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_weigh_in and delete_weigh_in.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to retrieve weigh-ins for a date range) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention that adding or deleting weigh-ins would be handled by different tools, though that is inferable from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'get detailed information', which is consistent with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not contradict. However, it adds little beyond the annotations; it doesn't mention what fields are returned or any potential nulls. Because annotations already signal read-only and open-world, the description's contribution is minimal but not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations. The description suffices for an agent to understand its purpose. No output schema exists, but that's not required for a simple retrieval; the description could mention what 'detailed information' includes, but it's not necessary at this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage, describing the workoutId parameter as the unique identifier and required. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that; it doesn't explain the format or examples. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific workout, using a verb ('get') and a specific resource ('workout by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_workouts (which likely lists workouts) and download_workout (which likely downloads data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single workout's details when an ID is known, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over other siblings like get_workouts or download_workout. No alternative tools are mentioned, so it's adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the tip about finding the gear UUID, which is helpful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as overwriting existing gear links or side effects. With annotations covering the destructive aspect, the description meets a baseline but adds limited extra value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and add a key practical detail. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It could theoretically mention that linking might replace existing gear assignments, but given the annotations already indicate destructiveness and the operation is straightforward, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to proceed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as both gearUUID and activityId are fully described in the schema. The tool description's note about the gear UUID being in the URL is already present in the schema's parameter description, so it adds no new meaning. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high, which is the case here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Link a piece of gear to an activity.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of gear and activity distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_gear_from_activity. The additional note about needing the gear UUID adds practical context without confusing the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (to associate gear with an activity) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no comparison with related tools like remove_gear_from_activity or get_gear_activities, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the UUID. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that name, gear items, and activity types can be changed, but it does not disclose that gearUUIDs and activityTypes replace existing lists rather than incrementally updating them; this is an important behavioral nuance not fully conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It mentions the most important changeable aspects without restating schema details, making it concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich input schema (100% property coverage) and annotations communicating destructive behavior, the description is largely sufficient for tool selection and basic invocation. It omits firstUseDate and the full replacement semantics, but these are already present in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each property already has a meaningful description, including the replacement semantics of gearUUIDs and activityTypes. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning and omits firstUseDate, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing gear collection'), and it enumerates the updatable aspects (name, gear items, activity types). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_gear_collection, delete_gear_collection, and update_gear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'existing gear collection' implies this is for modifying an already-created collection rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_gear_collection, delete_gear_collection, or update_gear. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., response format, pagination semantics, or relationship to other badge tools). It is a minimal restatement of the filter without enriching the agent's understanding of behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear. No unnecessary details or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema, read-only), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify how 'non-completed' differs from 'available' challenges (sibling: get_available_badge_challenges) or what constitutes 'completed' (e.g., earned vs. finished). Given the large sibling set, this missing context could lead to incorrect tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('limit' and 'start'), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get badge challenges that have not been completed yet' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('badge challenges') with a clear filter ('not been completed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_badge_challenges' (all challenges) and 'get_available_badge_challenges' (available vs. non-completed), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs non-completed badge challenges, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so description credit is earned for adding the explicit 'WARNING: This action cannot be undone.' This communicates irreversibility beyond the annotation flag, helping the agent understand the consequence. It does not add details about authorization, side effects, or response format, but it does provide meaningful warning context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and zero wasteful words. It front-loads the action ('Delete an activity') and then adds a crucial warning. Every part contributes to a focused, effective tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with a single parameter, one required field, and relevant annotations. The description covers the primary behavior and irreversibility. It does not specify what happens on success or whether the activity belongs to a required user, but for a minimal destructive operation with a clear schema, the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for activityId, so the schema already captures the parameter's meaning and required status. The description adds no further param syntax, semantics, or examples beyond what the schema defines, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an activity from Garmin Connect.' It clearly differentiates from sibling delete tools (delete_workout, delete_gear, etc.) by specifying activity as the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for permanently removing an activity but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. There is no mention of prerequisites or cases where this tool should not be used, but the destructive intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, but the description adds meaningful behavioral specifics: the 20% tolerance, closest-match ordering, and the return composition (full metrics + similarity score). It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the basic safety implied by readOnlyHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences immediately communicate what, how, and what the result looks like. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (full metrics plus normalized score) and the sorting. It omits the fact that searchDepth limits to recent state, which could matter for older reference activities, but the overall context is reasonably complete for a read-only search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds higher-level meaning by explaining the similarity criteria (type, distance, duration) and tolerance, but it does not elaborate on limit/searchDepth beyond what the schema already documents. Useful but not compensating for missing schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('activities similar to a reference activity'), explicit criteria (type, distance, duration), and clear output behavior (closest matches first, with full metrics and similarity score). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like compare_activities or list_recent_activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a natural use case: given a reference activity, retrieve similar ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as compare_activities or list_recent_activities, nor does it mention any exclusions. It provides context but no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Read-only behavior is already covered by readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds behavioral context by explaining that each activity is returned as a summary in the same format as list_recent_activities, which tells the agent what kind of response to expect. It does not deeply discuss pagination or the includeDetails override, but those are documented in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key output-format detail by referencing a sibling tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich schema descriptions and read-only annotation, the main description covers the most important missing piece: the response is a set of summaries whose shape matches list_recent_activities. It does not enumerate return fields or edge cases, but the schema covers parameter behavior and the sibling reference provides output format context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter, including limit, date formats, sort order, activityType, and includeDetails. The description only adds 'optionally filtered by type', which reinforces the activityType parameter but does not materially improve on the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get all activities') with scope ('within a date range, optionally filtered by type') and clarifies output shape by referencing list_recent_activities summaries. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as list_recent_activities or count_activities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for date-range activity listing, and it references list_recent_activities for summary format, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like count_activities or analyze_training_period. If consideration is limited to the main description, the usage guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read-only safety, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the specific returned data scope (pace, distance, and time per split) and no contradictory side effects are claimed. It does not cover things like units, availability, or authorization, but those are less critical for a simple read-only fetch.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loads the action, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, so a single clarifying sentence is nearly sufficient. The description names the return attributes (pace, distance, time) but leaves minor ambiguity about split types and units, which the sibling get_activity_typed_splits could have helped clarify.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers activityId fully as the required identifier with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no information about parameter format, default behavior, values, or edge cases, so the neutral baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('split/lap data') scoped to a specific activity, while also naming the key returned attributes (pace, distance, time). This clearly distinguishes it from generic activity listing tools, though not from get_activity_typed_splits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for fetching per-split data for one activity via a required activityId, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_activity_typed_splits or get_activity_details. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation that may return partial data. The description adds that it returns measurements plus the average, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like whether data may be missing for some days, how averages are computed, or if the tool returns empty results when no data exists. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. It lists the specific measurements and the average, with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is complete enough. It states what data is returned (measurements and average) and the period concept. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema, and the annotations cover safety. The only minor gap is not specifying behavior when no data exists, but that is not critical for a read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (days and endDate) with their constraints and defaults. The description adds the concept of 'over a period' and 'average across the period', which aligns with the parameters but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves body composition measurements (weight, BMI, body fat, muscle and bone mass) over a period and includes the average. The verb 'get' plus the specific resource 'body composition' and the scope 'over a period' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_weigh_ins, which focuses on weight entries, and get_health_metrics, which is broader.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving historical body composition data over a specified period, with the average included. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'over a period' and the parameter definitions (days, endDate) provide clear context. Sibling tools like get_weigh_ins might be alternatives for weight-only data, but this is not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavior beyond annotations, such as auto-chunking for long ranges and the 28-day limit. Annotations already indicate read-only, and the description adds these practical behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with the main action upfront and a parenthetical for limits. No unnecessary words, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description conveys the data returned (daily step counts) and a key usage constraint (max range). No output schema exists, so return details are not required, but the description is sufficiently informative for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description clarifies that startDate and endDate define a date range, but does not specify inclusivity, ordering, or additional constraints. Schema provides format via regex but no semantic detail beyond that. Adds some context but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (get daily step counts) and the resource (step data) for a date range, with specific constraints. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on daily steps specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage constraints (max 28 days, auto-chunking) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over other step-related getters (e.g., get_steps_data, get_daily_summary). Guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the default behavior (returns all devices when no deviceId) and what data is included (time, repeat days, on/off status). However, it does not disclose potential output format or any other behavioral nuances beyond the schema hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately clarifies the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the data fields returned (time, repeat days, on/off) and the default behavior. It could mention response format or pagination, but for this simplicity it is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the parameter has a description). The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it reinforces that deviceId is optional and defaults to every device. Since the schema already covers it, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets alarms configured on a Garmin device, specifying the resource ('alarms') and the verb ('get'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on device alarms, and the mention of 'every registered device' when no deviceId is provided clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve alarms for a device, with optional deviceId to filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_device_settings) suggests differentiation. The behavior when deviceId is omitted is clear, providing usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the action (get settings), which is consistent with read-only. No contradictions or additional useful details are provided beyond what annotations already cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and parameter. It could benefit from mentioning what kinds of settings are returned, but that is not critical for tool selection or basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter deviceId has a clear description ('The device identifier (required)'). The description's phrase 'specific Garmin device' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (settings), and the scope (a specific Garmin device). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_devices (list devices) and get_primary_training_device (primary device selection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: retrieve settings for a given device identified by deviceId. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the tool's simplicity and the sibling list. It provides sufficient clarity for when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly notes that the gear UUID is needed and where to find it, which adds value beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose return format, performance characteristics, or additional behavioral caveats like whether stats are cached or require specific permissions. The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true) already cover safety and boundlessness, and the description adds the UUID prerequisite context, but the behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the one key prerequisite, with zero waste. It is highly efficient for a simple tool with one parameter and clear annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the 100% schema description coverage, the description is adequately complete. The note about the UUID source is a valuable contextual addition that helps the agent source the required input. No significant missing information for proper selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, as the gearUUID parameter has a detailed description in the schema itself that covers its meaning and how to find it. The tool description adds a concise note about the UUID location (in the URL of Garmin Connect web), which reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema's explanation. Since the schema already carries the parameter semantics, the description's contribution is marginal but consistent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get usage statistics for a specific piece of gear' with a specific verb and resource, differentiating from siblings like get_all_gear, update_gear, delete_gear, get_gear_activities. It clearly states the tool fetches statistics for one gear item based on its UUID, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context on when to use this tool (when you need stats for a specific gear item) and hints at the prerequisite of obtaining the gear UUID, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_gear_activities or get_all_gear. The note about UUID location in Garmin Connect UI adds practical guidance, though it lacks a direct 'use this instead of X' exclusions or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, covering the primary behavioral trait (read-only). The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., behavior when no data exists, response format). Since the annotation covers the safety aspect, this is acceptable, but the description doesn't enrich beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, it could have briefly mentioned what data is returned (e.g., units, structure). But given the simplicity, missing this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides a full description of the 'date' parameter (format, default), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description offers no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (get) and specific resource (daily hydration/water intake data) with a scope (for a specific date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_hydration_data (write) and other data getters (e.g., get_steps, get_heart_rate), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is clear: use this tool when you need hydration data for a particular date. The description implies this without explicitly mentioning alternatives or when-not-to-use. Since it's a specialized getter and no alternative for reading hydration data exists among siblings, this is adequate, though it could have noted that it's read-only (already covered by annotation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the 'currently in progress' filter, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or return format. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, containing zero extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema. The description is complete for its simplicity, but given the many sibling challenge-related tools, it could have clarified what 'in progress' means or differentiated itself from other challenge types. Still, it meets the minimum requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both `limit` and `start` have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not mention parameters or add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves virtual challenges currently in progress, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('virtual challenges'), and the qualifier 'currently in progress' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_adhoc_challenges or get_badge_challenges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need in-progress virtual challenges), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the 'in progress' qualifier narrows the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation, confirming it is a destructive operation. It does not add extra behavioral details beyond the annotation, but consistency with the annotation satisfies the lower bar for transparency when annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the action and a necessary prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and a practical note about obtaining the required UUID. Since there is no output schema, no return value explanation is needed. It is sufficiently complete for a simple unlink operation, though it could optionally mention reversibility or effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both required parameters (gearUUID and activityId), including how to obtain the gear UUID. The tool description adds no new information about parameters, so it does not contribute beyond the schema's high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove/unlink a piece of gear from an activity.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'link_gear_to_activity' and 'delete_gear'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide excluding conditions. The purpose is implied, but no direct guidance on when to prefer this over other gear-related operations is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructive and open-world hints, and the description adds the context that data is offloaded by Garmin, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on the implications of the destructive hint, such as whether existing data is overwritten or if the request is asynchronous. The description adds some value beyond the annotations but leaves behavioral details unexplored.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 20-word sentence with the core action front-loaded. It provides essential context in an efficient parenthetical, with zero unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and when it's needed. It could explain return behavior or asynchronous nature, but the absence is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the date parameter thoroughly with a description, regex pattern, and required flag, achieving 100% coverage. The tool's description only refers to 'a specific date', adding no further meaning. Since the schema carries the full weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Request reload of data for a specific date' with a specific verb and resource. It adds the important context that it's for older data offloaded by Garmin, which differentiates it from siblings like download_activity or get_activity_details. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'useful for older data that was offloaded by Garmin' explicitly describes when to use this tool, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it doesn't fully meet the highest bar. This is clear context without exclusions, scoring a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide destructiveHint, so the agent already knows this operation can have side effects, but the description does not clarify what may be overwritten or what happens on conflict. It adds useful return semantics by stating a workoutScheduleId is returned and can be used to unschedule.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences that cover the operation, the main input, and the return value. Every clause contributes useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: schedule an existing workout on a date and receive the schedule ID. The main omission is more detail on destructive side effects, but annotations partially compensate for that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters fully and has 100% schema coverage. The description mostly echoes the schema context ('existing workout', 'specific date'), so additional semantic value is limited but not required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb ('Schedule'), target resource ('existing workout'), and time constraint ('on a specific date'). This distinguishes it clearly from related sibling tools like create_workout, update_workout, delete_workout, and unschedule_workout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear that the tool expects an already-existing workout and a date, and it references the inverse unschedule operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is reasonably clear from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. However, it doesn't add extra context beyond the annotation, such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any authorization requirements. Acceptable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Update', and covers all key aspects without verbosity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, a concise description suffices. The schema fully documents parameters, and annotations cover destructive hint. The description is clear enough for straightforward updates, though could mention whether partial updates are supported.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are clear. The description adds the semantic grouping 'name, description, or structure' which helps clarify the purpose of the parameters beyond the schema. Good but not extensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing workout' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the updatable aspects (name, description, structure). It distinguishes from siblings like create_workout and delete_workout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (to modify existing workouts) but does not explicitly mention when to use vs. alternatives like create_workout or delete_workout, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds domain context about collections grouping gear items but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, authentication, or return shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the action, and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is fully adequate. It explains what the tool returns and why collections matter, while annotations cover the safety semantics. There is no missing essential context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds relevant domain context without needing to explain parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Get all gear collections.' It also explains what collections are with concrete examples, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_gear_collection (singular) or get_all_gear (gear items, not collections).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Get all gear collections' implies use for retrieving the full set of collections, and the sibling list includes get_gear_collection for a single one. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which covers safety and extensibility. The description adds that it returns make names and primary keys, which is a behavioral detail not in annotations. No contradiction, and the description provides useful context about the return content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences. It uses an example to clarify, which is helpful, but the second sentence about return values is a bit redundant given the first sentence already mentions brands/makes; still, it specifies the primary keys, adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate: it states what it returns and provides examples. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning ordering or if it returns all makes at once, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (essentially empty). The description adds the meaning of the output (make names and primary keys) which is useful since there are no parameters to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this holds.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns all available gear brands/makes with examples and specifies that it returns make names and primary keys. This is a specific verb (get) and resource (gear makes), and it distinguishes from siblings like get_all_gear and get_gear_types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a list of gear makes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_all_gear or get_gear_types. The sibling tools exist for broader gear data and types, so some context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data availability. The description adds value by explaining that the output represents pulse oximetry readings as a percentage and gives the normal range, helping the agent interpret results. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then adds a clarifying explanation of SpO2 and normal range. Every word serves a purpose—no filler or redundancy—making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the data is, its unit, and a reference range. Combined with the annotations (readOnly, openWorld), the agent has sufficient context to call and interpret results without further detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% since the schema already documents the 'date' parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (today). The description only repeats 'for a specific date' without adding additional meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves SpO2 (blood oxygen saturation) data for a specific date, with the verb 'Get' and resource 'SpO2 data'. It distinguishes itself from sibling health metric tools like get_heart_rate or get_respiration_data by specifying the pulse oximetry metric and providing normal range context (95-100%), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (for retrieving SpO2 data on a date) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the many similar get_* tools, some guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if needing respiratory rate) would be helpful, but the metric specificity makes the intended use clear enough for a baseline score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the count spans the user's entire Garmin Connect history unless a start/end date is supplied, which is useful beyond the annotations. It doesn't discuss the exact return value shape, but for a simple count tool this burden is low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that leads with the action and resource, then quickly covers the scope alternatives. There is no redundant phrasing or extra detail, making it an excellent concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter optional read-only tool, the description plus schema gives the agent enough understanding to invoke it. Because there is no output schema, the description could arguably state that the result is a number, but the name and purpose already imply a count, so this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented as optional, date-formatted, and providing defaults. The tool description merely restates the 'date range' concept already covered by the schema. It doesn't add additional param semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Count') with a clear resource ('activities in Garmin Connect') and explicitly defines the scope as 'whole history' or 'date range'. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_recent_activities or get_activity_details, which retrieve lists or single activity details rather than aggregate counts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states when this tool is appropriate: for counting activities across all history or for a bounded date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_recent_activities for retrieving details, but the context makes it clear that count_activities is intended for counts rather than item-level data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already flags that this is destructive; the description adds the relevant workflow detail that the version ID should be obtained from get_blood_pressure /all. It does not cover permanence or side effects, but annotations lower the burden and there is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with the main action first and the lookup guidance second; no filler or repeated schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the target, explains how to find the required version, and relies on the schema for parameter formats. It could mention irreversibility, but destructiveHint already communicates this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers both parameters with 100% coverage (date format and version/ID descriptions). The description adds a small contextual hint that the version comes from a get_blood_pressure lookup, but does not need to restate parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states exactly the action ('Delete a blood pressure reading') on a specific resource, and differentiates from sibling get_blood_pressure and set_blood_pressure. It also names the lookup endpoint needed to identify the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides an explicit prerequisite workflow: use get_blood_pressure with the /all endpoint to find the version ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a deletion it is clear enough; no alternative deletion tool exists among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, so the description responsibly adds the explicit 'cannot be undone' warning, providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is exceptionally brief—one sentence with an important warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It could mention the impact on related activities (e.g., link removal), but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter gearUUID is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) on a specific resource (a piece of gear/equipment) and adds an irreversible warning, distinguishing it from other delete tools like delete_gear_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use (deleting gear) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from siblings. The warning implies caution, but no alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the FIT format and Garmin sync purpose, which are not in annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action and format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and format. It does not detail the exact response shape (e.g., binary or base64), but the mention of 'FIT format' gives sufficient context. Overall, adequately complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema documents workoutId with a clear description and is the only parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (download), the resource (workout), and the output format (FIT) for a specific purpose (Garmin sync). It distinguishes from siblings like download_activity or get_workouts by focusing on the downloadable file format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context—syncing to a Garmin device—which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_workout_by_id or schedule_workout, so it falls short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with stating safety. It adds useful behavioral context by indicating that typed splits contain more detail than regular splits and are tailored to certain activity types, which helps the agent understand the nature of the returned data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical qualification. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's function and when it is relevant. It could have been slightly more explicit about return structure or distinctions from overlapping sibling tools, but the provided context is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for its single required parameter, activityId, with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get typed splits for an activity.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_activity_splits by noting it is 'more detailed than regular splits,' and provides concrete use cases like bouldering and strength training.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear intended context by saying it is 'more detailed than regular splits' and 'useful for bouldering, strength training, etc.' This implicitly points toward when to prefer this over get_activity_splits, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds nuance about auto-detected activities that may not have been recorded, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict them, and the added detail is relevant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and distinguishes a key feature. No fluff or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does. The inclusion of auto-detected activities is a valuable additional detail. While it doesn't describe return format, that's not required given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the single 'date' parameter fully (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all daily events, including auto-detected activities not explicitly recorded. This distinguishes it from other getters like 'get_all_day_stress' or 'get_body_battery_events' that focus on specific metrics, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear when to use this tool—when you need all daily events, especially those auto-detected. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the sibling context, the intended use is well-understood.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, unrestricted read operation. The description adds that it returns UUIDs and covers all gear, which is useful context, but it doesn't mention potential large response size or any data organization beyond the fact that it's a list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a meaningful rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (full list with UUIDs) and why it's valuable. It could theorize about pagination or response size, but the simple scope and annotations make this relatively complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description actually adds meaning by clarifying that the output includes UUIDs, which addresses the schema's lack of parameters. No parameter-level guidance is needed since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get complete list of all gear/equipment with their UUIDs', which is a specific verb+resource combo. It clearly establishes the full scope ('all gear') and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_gear_stats or get_gear_collection by focusing on the complete list with UUIDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining 'This solves the UUID problem - you can now discover all gear without needing to manually find UUIDs in the web interface'. It implies when to use it (UUID discovery), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, like when to use get_gear_stats or get_gear_activities instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it notes that active window and progress are returned only 'where set,' indicating optional fields, and it warns that includeDetails produces a much larger response. This helps an agent anticipate variability in output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences front-load the core purpose and return fields, then immediately handle the optional parameter. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough shape: it lists the returned fields and flags response-size behavior. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but the annotations and low parameter count make this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes includeDetails as returning every field (default false) and notes the response is much larger. The description's 'full badge records' adds little beyond the schema's own coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get all badges available to earn') and lists the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_earned_badges and get_in_progress_badges by emphasizing 'available to earn' versus earned or in-progress states.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to list badges that can be earned. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the phrase 'available to earn' implicitly separates it from earned-badge and challenge tools. It also gives usage guidance for the includeDetails parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar for disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context that this is a compact/summary view versus detailed series, and names the specific alternative for detailed heart rate data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the tool's output, and the second sentence gives a clear pointer to the sibling tool for more granular data. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned metrics is important and provided. The optional date parameter and lack of detail about default behavior are minor gaps, but the tool is otherwise adequately described for a read-only summary endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, date, and the schema already fully describes its format with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantics beyond implying the summary is daily, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a 'compact daily summary' and enumerates the contained metrics (steps, calories, distance, heart rate, stress, body battery, time breakdown). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_heart_rate, which provides the full heart rate series.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance to use get_heart_rate when the full heart rate series is needed, which helps differentiate from a sibling tool. It does not enumerate all other alternative tools, but the primary competing use case is addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare read-only behavior, and openWorldHint is present. The description adds useful output expectations by specifying id, name, and upload time, but it does not mention behavior for cases like no usable device or connectivity issues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the main action and result fields efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential invocation context and expected output fields. It is sufficient for basic use, though it could be slightly richer by clarifying the case where no device upload exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no argument details the description must compensate for. The description rightly focuses on the result semantics rather than parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the target resource (Garmin device) and the selection criterion (most recently uploaded data), while explicitly listing the returned fields: id, name, and upload time. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_devices and get_primary_training_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'uploaded data most recently' implies when to use the tool, but the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Given sibling tools like get_devices and get_primary_training_device exist, explicit comparison would have made the usage guidance stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns type names and primary keys useful for creating gear, which is a small behavioral note. It doesn't describe any edge cases or additional output details, but for a simple list retrieval with no parameters, this is acceptable. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero filler. Each sentence adds value: first states what's returned, second indicates how the data is used.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return value usage. It doesn't describe error cases or pagination, but for a simple static list, this is likely sufficient. The openWorldHint suggests there might be external data, but that's not explained; still, the description is complete enough for this simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (0 params), so there's nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does add the semantic context that the returned values are used when creating gear, which is helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all available gear/equipment types'), and provides concrete examples (Shoes, Bike, Golf Clubs, Other). It also mentions the return content (type names and primary keys used when creating gear), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_gear_makes or get_gear_collections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use this tool: to retrieve gear types needed when creating gear. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but given the sibling tools (e.g., get_gear_makes, get_all_gear), the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer context. No alternatives are suggested, but for a reference/lookup tool with no parameters, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only annotation is present, and the description adds that it returns weekly totals and a goal, giving insight into the output. No side effects or hidden behavior are mentioned, but none are expected for a read-only getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that covers the essential functionality without fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of the response (intensity minutes, weekly totals, goal). It lacks specifics like units or formatting, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes both parameters (date and endDate) with their roles and formats. The description repeats this relationship but does not add new parameter information, so it meets the baseline without extra depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves intensity minutes (moderate and vigorous) for a date or date range, and includes weekly totals and goal. This is a specific action on a specific resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_steps or get_heart_rate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the primary use case: fetching intensity minutes for a single date or a range when endDate is provided. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context makes it obvious when to use this over similar getters, so it's clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, meaning it's a safe read with open-world semantics. The description adds useful context: records include typeId, value, date, and optional activity, which clarifies the data shape beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a useful elaboration on record fields. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It describes what is returned (records and fields) without needing to detail return format. It lacks few details but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description explains the return structure (fields per record), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema, justifying a high score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets all personal records (PRs) and enumerates what each record contains (typeId, value, date, activity). It is specific and distinct from siblings like get_activity_details or get_user_profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it's for retrieving PRs but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to. There is no mention of filters or related tools, but the context of being a general list tool is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the output measure ('breaths per minute') and temporal coverage ('throughout the day and during sleep'), though it does not discuss missing-data behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: the first states the primary action and resource, and the second clarifies the output unit and coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description adequately covers what data is returned ('breaths per minute throughout the day and during sleep'). It does not specify response structure, but the phrasing is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter, including format and default-to-today behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely says 'for a specific date,' which mirrors the schema and adds no new parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly names the resource ('respiration/breathing rate data'), the action ('get'), and the temporal scope ('for a specific date'), while also stating the unit ('breaths per minute'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling health-metric tools like get_hrv_data or get_spo2_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use it to retrieve respiration/breathing data for a specific date, covering both daytime and sleep periods. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the focus on 'respiration/breathing rate data' makes the intended use case evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already signal read-only status, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the snapshot semantics: the result is taken at endDate, not aggregated across the date range. This helps avoid a common misuse of the startDate/endDate pair and goes beyond the annotation's safety signal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. The second sentence provides a key behavioral clarification with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, simple two-parameter tool with high schema coverage, the description sufficiently orients the agent: what the tool returns, when it is relevant, and how the dates behave. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the load categories and target-range comparison, making the return concept clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that endDate is the snapshot point rather than the end of an aggregation window, which is essential to correctly interpret the two date parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('monthly training load balance') with its sub-categories (low aerobic, high aerobic, anaerobic) and comparison against target ranges. The snapshot clarification further distinguishes it from aggregate-range tools and related load metrics among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: to fetch a snapshotted training load balance as of endDate. It clarifies this is not an aggregate over the range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_training_status or get_load_ratio, nor does it list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavioral traits: encryption at rest, immediate login, and no plaintext password writes. Annotations include openWorldHint and destructiveHint, and the description elaborates safely without contradicting them, though it could mention any overwrite/rotation of existing credentials.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences deliver purpose, timing, and security context. Everything is front-loaded and relevant, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-param, no-output-schema tool with helpful annotations, the description covers why, when, and the security model. It could go one step further by clarifying the response/error behavior or that it will overwrite/replace existing credentials, but overall it's sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description ('Garmin Connect account email/password'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Purpose is crystal clear: store Garmin credentials in the OS native vault and log in immediately. It names the specific resource (Garmin credentials), the action (setup/store), and the immediate consequence (login), distinguishing it from siblings like check_credentials and clear_credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when the server reports that credentials are missing or invalid.' It doesn't explicitly call out when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the trigger condition is concrete and sufficient for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, whether the list is static or user-specific). Given annotations carry the burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate—no contradiction, but no additional value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. There is zero filler and it is well-structured with the verb leading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, zero-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully satisfies the informational needs. It specifies exactly what is returned (all activity types) and the source (Garmin Connect). No further context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving all activity types from Garmin Connect. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activity types') with a scope qualifier ('all'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch other data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Though no explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned, the tool's purpose inherently implies it should be used when a list of valid activity types is needed. Since there are no obvious sibling alternatives for this specific resource, lack of exclusions is acceptable. The context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (gear items and activity types), going beyond just saying 'details'. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key deliverables. No waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and supportive annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, scope, and return content (gear items and activity types). It is complete for its complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the param description includes a useful hint to use get_gear_collections to find the UUID. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves detailed information about a specific gear collection, explicitly listing gear items and associated activity types. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_gear_collections (which lists collections) by using 'specific' and 'detailed information'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage when you have a collectionUUID and need details. The schema parameter description provides clear guidance to first call get_gear_collections to find the UUID. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear enough for a simple get operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by defining 'in progress' as 'started but not completed', which clarifies the state and complements the annotations. No contradictions; it adds value beyond the structured data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, matching the efficiency of the high-calibration example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read-only tool with an open-world hint, the description is complete. It clearly defines the exact scope of data returned, and there is no output schema requiring explanation. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly provides no additional parameter information, and there is nothing to document. The schema Coverage is 100% (trivially), so the description does not need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get badges that are currently in progress' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_earned_badges (completed) and get_available_badges (not yet started) by explicitly defining the state: 'started but not completed'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need in-progress badges) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Unlike the high-calibration example, there's no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
该描述通过详细说明响应默认情况下是摘要形式，且设置 `includeDetails` 可能生成与约25个活动代码块限制冲突的大型负载，从而提供了超出 `readOnlyHint: true` 注解的行为预期，该行为与注解读取操作一致的结论一致且相辅相成。
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
描述非常简洁地用了两句话，第一句告诉用户工具能做什么以及返回什么，第二句提供了清晰、可操作的关于备选工具的指导。每个词都有其价值，没有冗余。
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
对于这种以列表为主要目的且带可选分页的工具，描述提供了帮助代理者了解使用边界所需的全部上下文信息。它解释了摘要和详细字段的区别，并针对工具使用直接指出了备选方案。
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
输入结构已经提供了参数（`limit`、`start`、`includeDetails`）的完整描述，且语义清晰。描述中并没有像CAPEC这样的内容复杂逻辑需要额外说明，因此基线评分为3分是合适的。
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
该描述明确指出其作用：获取近期活动列表。它通过明确列举响应中将会包含的字段，枚举了返回的数据（名称、类型、日期、距离、速度、心率等），并提供了一个清晰的用例来区别于 `get_activity_details`。
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
描述中明确指示代理在需要完整详情时使用 `get_activity_details`，从而明确排除了一个关键的非目标场景，并有效区分了主要用例中的重叠情况。虽然没有像显式对比 `get_activities_by_date` 那样，将可能重叠的备选方案排除在外，但主要的替代方案已经明确覆盖。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds critical context: the warning about ghost entries and the need to unschedule before deletion, which goes beyond the annotation. It also explains the consequence of not using it properly. This is a good supplementary explanation, though it doesn't detail other side effects (e.g., what happens to the schedule object).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the action clearly, and the second is a critical usage warning. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. It's concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to convey the key behavioral nuance. The warning about ghost entries and the sequence with delete_workout addresses the most important context. It doesn't mention return behavior, but with no output schema and a simple operation, that's acceptable. The completeness is strong for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'scheduleId', which includes 'The workout schedule ID (workoutScheduleId returned from schedule_workout)'. The description itself doesn't add parameter details, but the schema already provides clear semantics, including the source of the ID. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, but the schema's explicit pointer to schedule_workout adds value, so a 4 is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: removing a scheduled workout from the calendar. It uses a specific verb ('unschedule') and resource ('scheduled workout'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_workout by emphasizing the calendar removal aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other scheduling-related tools, but the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'ALWAYS unschedule before deleting a workout to avoid ghost entries,' which provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and the recommended sequence relative to delete_workout. This is explicit guidance about the workflow, making it highly useful for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description explains the default behavior (daily totals) and how includeBreakdown changes the response to include 96 quarter-hour intervals. This adds useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences provide the core purpose, the default returned data, and the optional breakdown behavior. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately conveys what the tool returns and when to request the breakdown. The only minor gap is that the date parameter is not marked required in the schema, even though the tool's behavior implies a date is the primary input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further meaning by explaining that includeBreakdown returns the 96 quarter-hour interval data behind the daily totals, which helps the agent understand when that parameter is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get the floors climbed and descended on a date." It also states the output granularity (daily totals vs 96 quarter-hour intervals), making the tool easily distinguishable from the many other get_* siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly scopes usage to date-based floor totals and explains when to request the breakdown with includeBreakdown. It does not name alternatives, but the tool's purpose is specific enough that no close alternative is apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the meaningful context that results are derived from current fitness data. It does not contradict annotations and provides value beyond the structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds meaning. It is optimally sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and what it depends on (current fitness). It could mention the returned format or that data must exist, but for a straightforward prediction tool, this level of detail is sufficient and comparable to high-scoring examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 predicted race times for 5K, 10K, half marathon, and marathon based on current fitness.' It specifies a specific verb (get), a precise resource (predicted race times for four distances), and the basis (current fitness). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_personal_records or get_fitness_age, which focus on actual data rather than predictions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'based on current fitness,' which suggests it should be used when the user wants an estimate of their race performance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since no sibling tool provides predictions, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile of this read tool is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining that the two account IDs serve different roles (ownerId on activities, userProfilePK on wellness records) and by listing the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences and front-loads the core purpose before delivering the high-value keying detail. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is structurally complete: it says what the tool returns and clarifies the one subtle distinction (profileId vs id) that an agent needs to use the value. The only noticeable gap is it never explicitly states the profile belongs to the currently authenticated/connected user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema correctly reflects that, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description wisely focuses on the semantics of the returned IDs, adding more value than any parameter documentation could here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get user profile information', then enumerates exactly what is returned (display name, user name, full name, both account ids). It further clarifies the semantic distinction between profileId and id, which resolves a key ambiguity and distinguishes this tool from summary-style siblings like get_user_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining that profileId is the ID other Garmin data is keyed by, so an agent can infer this tool is the way to obtain the canonical profile key for cross-referencing activities, wellness records, and other endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint and openWorldHint, indicating mutation and non-isolated effects. The description adds value by disambiguating the 'subscribers' enum value as Garmin's 'connections only' and reminding the agent to fetch the current level first, which helps avoid mix-ups beyond what annotations state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and contains only three purposeful sentences: the action, a critical value disambiguation, and a valuable precondition. There is no wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter activity write tool, the description supplies the key operational details: what is being changed and how to pick the correct enum value. It also points to a useful helper call. Mentioning consequences of making something public could be the one missing layer, but given annotations and schema coverage, this remains sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters at 100%, including the enum and the invalid 'followers' warning. The description still earns credit by mapping 'subscribers' to Garmin UI terminology, preventing incorrect parameter selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Change the privacy of an activity', stating a clear action verb and resource. It uniquely distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_activity_name or set_activity_type, and the subject matter is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to 'Read the current level from accessControlRuleDTO in get_activity_details before changing it', giving an actionable prerequisite and naming a related sibling tool. It does not discuss explicit when-not-to-use cases, but it provides clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explicitly states that the operation cannot be undone and that gear items within the collection are NOT deleted. This prevents misuse and clarifies the exact scope of the destruction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, conveying the purpose and two key cautions in just two short sentences. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the essential details: what is deleted, that it's irreversible, and that items are preserved. The annotation confirms destructiveness, making the documentation complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter collectionUUID is fully described in the schema with 'The collection UUID to delete (required)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a gear collection' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'delete_gear' which targets individual gear items. The warning clarifies scope, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the action, and while it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the warning 'This cannot be undone' implies caution. Among siblings, delete_gear is the obvious alternative for deleting individual items, so the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description respects that filtering model — it accurately describes a pure read of hourly summaries. While it doesn't discuss pagination or rate limits, it does specify the exact aggregated values returned, adding context beyond the annotations. For a read-only tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the output exactly; the second adds usage guidance and routes to the alternative. The purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only aggregate tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description captures everything an agent needs: what is returned, when to use it, and what to use instead. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single 'date' parameter with a format pattern and example, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions the date implicitly ('a day') but adds no information beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('get') and clear resource ('stress of a day'), and precisely enumerates the return content — average, maximum, stress band for each hour, plus day totals. This fully distinguishes it from get_stress_data and other siblings at a glance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly names the sibling tool (get_stress_data) and explains the decision rule: use this for hourly detail, use the sibling for the whole day, and use includeValues for three-minute samples. It also tells the agent when to use it — to see when stress rose or fell.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds transparency about the merge behavior when no status is supplied, which is not disclosed in annotations or schema. This adds valuable context without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral nuance in the second. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single optional parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema requirement for a simple getter, the description provides sufficient context. The merge behavior clarifies the main edge case, and the tool's usage is fully understandable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the status parameter with enum values and a description. The tool description goes beyond by explaining the runtime behavior when the parameter is omitted (all statuses queried and merged, each goal tagged with its status), which enriches the parameter semantics. This is a meaningful addition to the schema's static documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get user goals.' The verb 'get' and resource 'goals' are specific, and the behavior when no status is provided is explained, distinguishing it from other getter tools. No sibling tool targets goals, so it is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the effect of omitting the status parameter—queries all statuses and merges results—which serves as a usage guideline for parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, though this is less critical given the tool's unique scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a critical behavioral nuance: that water, muscle, and bone percentages are accepted but discarded by Garmin on manual entry, and are only kept for smart-scale-uploaded measurements. This goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint) and provides essential information an agent needs to avoid surprising the user. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately following with a critical behavioral note. There is zero waste and the most important information appears first. It is perfectly sized for this simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple add operation with complete schema and annotations, the description covers the action, the behavior of optional parameters, and implicitly the destructive nature (via annotation). It does not mention the return value or success response, but given there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, this is not a critical gap. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the real-world consequence of passing optional parameters (they are discarded), which the schema already hints at but the description reinforces with the manual vs. smart-scale distinction. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a new weigh-in record.' It specifies the resource (weigh-in) and the action (add). It also mentions the stored fields and the discarded fields, which distinguishes this tool from related ones like get_weigh_ins and delete_weigh_in. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when adding a manual weigh-in. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context (the sibling names and the explicit behavior about discarded fields) makes it clear. The note about Garmin discarding certain fields provides context about the tool's behavior but not about alternative tools. Given the simplicity and clear naming, this is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output fields and the scope (registered on the account). Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so no contradiction. It does not mention error handling, but that is not critical for a read-only list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundant words. It clearly separates the main function from the alternative, maintaining a logical structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides the key returned fields and clarifies the tool's scope. It also offers a pointer to a related tool, making it self-sufficient for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, so there is nothing to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (Garmin devices) and specifies the output fields (id, model, serial, firmware version). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_settings by explicitly mentioning that tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a specific alternative (get_device_settings for configuration) indicating when not to use this tool. However, it does not mention other related tools (e.g., get_device_last_used) but the single pointer is sufficient for a listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and data-scope profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: per-minute series are returned as counts only by default, and includeTimeSeries produces a very large response, helping the agent anticipate output size without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary deliverable is stated first, followed by the routing caveat, and every clause adds information needed for tool selection or invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description covers the key return components and the large-response caveat. It could add a bit more precision about response shape or units, but for a read-only aggregate tool with optional parameters, the essentials needed to call it correctly are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both date and includeTimeSeries are already well documented in the input schema. The description still adds value by explaining the default behavior (counts only) and the relationship between includeTimeSeries and the underlying per-minute series, reinforcing rather than merely repeating the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource (a night of sleep) and enumerates the concrete aggregate outputs: duration, sleep stages, quality score, and nightly summary. It also positions the tool against sibling per-series tools by noting that per-minute series are counts-only unless inlined, so an agent can distinguish it from get_sleep_movement, get_hrv_data, and get_respiration_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit routing guidance: for a single per-minute series, use the dedicated tool instead, and set includeTimeSeries when the full set is needed. This clearly separates when to use this tool versus the alternative series-specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already say destructiveHint=true, but description adds specifics: deletes encrypted credentials and OAuth tokens, ends session, and clarifies extension-settings credentials are excluded. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, covering purpose, effect, and an important exception. Concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations indicating destructiveness, the description fully explains the action and its scope. It also distinguishes from extension-settings credentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters. Baseline of 4 applies since no params to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: delete encrypted credentials and OAuth tokens from secure storage, and end the session. Distinct from sibling tools like setup_credentials and check_credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says it deletes credentials and ends the session, and clarifies that credentials from extension settings are not affected and must be cleared elsewhere. It distinguishes from setup/check credentials implicitly via the delete action, but doesn't explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the critical constraint 'Never returns the password' beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also mentions storing encrypted data, which gives insight into internal behavior. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that packs multiple pieces of information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple check tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is complete. It covers all relevant aspects: what is reported, the credential source, storage location, session state, and the critical password non-disclosure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description has no parameter obligations. It effectively explains what the tool does without needing to describe inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool reports on credential configuration, source, storage location, and session authentication. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with activities, gear, or health data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking credential status, but does not explicitly contrast with setup_credentials or clear_credentials. It is clear enough that it is for verification, not modification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses return contents (average/max/min, seconds per band, ~460 samples with includeValues), data provenance (average/max match Garmin's day figures; min/band seconds are derived), and scaling semantics. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone cannot provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences carry a high density of useful information: scale bands, return values, data provenance, and the sibling alternative. No filler or redundancy; the key actions and semantics are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, how to interpret the scale, when to request samples, and how this differs from the nearest sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by quantifying the includeValues output as '~460 three-minute samples' and by explaining that min/band seconds are derived from those samples, deepening understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('stress for a date'), and the 0-100 scale with band ranges. It also distinguishes itself from get_all_day_stress by noting the hourly breakdown alternative, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly directs to get_all_day_stress for hour-by-hour data and clarifies when includeValues is worth requesting (to see when during the day stress rose or fell). This gives concrete selection criteria for both the tool and its parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint, and the description reinforces it by stating 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be recovered afterwards'. Also clarifies that it deletes a single record and explains the date parameter behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, uses two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes all essential details without redundancy. Well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation (delete by ID), the description covers the action, identification, irreversibility, and the optional parameter usage. No output schema is needed, so it is complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only gives types and patterns, but the description adds meaning: weighInId is the samplePk from get_weigh_ins or get_body_composition, and date is used when the weigh-in was back-dated. This goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (weigh-in record), specifies it is permanent and single, and identifies the ID source. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_blood_pressure or delete_workout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: for deleting a single weigh-in record. Explains when to pass the optional date parameter (when the weigh-in was back-dated). Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_weigh_in, but the scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![garmin-mcp-ts MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sedoglia/garmin-mcp-ts/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sedoglia/garmin-mcp-ts)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![garmin-mcp-ts MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sedoglia/garmin-mcp-ts/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sedoglia/garmin-mcp-ts)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sedoglia/garmin-mcp-ts'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server