scan_google_fit_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior: scanning the ./data folder, detecting specific Google Fit export folder names, and listing files. This conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify file contents' but 'lists the files' strongly implies a safe, scan-only action.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the action and location, and lists the specific export folder types. It is slightly verbose with the long list, but it earns its place by clarifying what is detected.

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 scan/list tool with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It details the folder detection logic and implies a read-only operation. The only missing element is an explicit connection to how the returned file list is used with sibling tools, but that is more of a usage guideline than a completeness gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the folder structure and detection criteria, which is not captured by the empty input schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: it scans the ./data folder, identifies Google Fit export folders (Activities, Daily activity metrics, All sessions, All data), and lists files. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that read specific data types (e.g., get_daily_activity, read_fitness_file).

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 usage as a discovery step before reading specific files, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The sibling tools are for reading, not scanning, so the use case is reasonably clear 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.