get_device_last_usedRetrieve the Garmin device that most recently uploaded data, including its ID, name, and upload time.
Get the Garmin device that uploaded data most recently, with its id, name and upload time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.