read_fitness_file

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

The description discloses that it reads raw or parsed content and restricts to the ./data folder, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error behaviors (e.g., missing files, binary content) or permissions, and with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The existence of an output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple file-read tool, the description and schema provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema covers return values, and the tool's scope is clearly limited to ./data. It lacks explicit usage comparisons with siblings, which is a minor gap, but overall it is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description for file_path covers its meaning (relative path within ./data) completely, and the description only repeats this without adding additional nuance. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads raw or parsed content of any file inside ./data, with a specific verb ('Lê') and resource ('qualquer ficheiro dentro da pasta ./data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on higher-level derived data (e.g., get_daily_activity), making its purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for accessing raw data files, which is distinct from the sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_daily_activity or scan_google_fit_data, leaving the usage inference to the agent.

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