garmin_api_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the response is raw, unprocessed JSON, and this is a fallback rather than a primary path. It omits error behavior for invalid paths and auth requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the restriction second. Every clause carries routing information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter passthrough GET with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description covers enough to call it correctly. A note on invalid-path/404 behavior would close the remaining gap, but no output schema means the raw-JSON statement does its job.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the path parameter already ships a concrete example ('/usersummary-service/stats/stress/weekly/2026-10-01/4'). The description adds no further meaning about 'path' or 'params' (e.g. date-format conventions or how nested query params are encoded), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (GET) and resource (any Garmin Connect API path) plus the return shape (raw JSON). The 'escape hatch' framing plus the sibling-prefix reference ('no other garmin_ tool') makes it unambiguous against the ~37 domain tools listed.

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?

'Use only when no other garmin_ tool covers what is needed' is an explicit negative routing rule that prevents an agent from reaching for this first. It does not name which sibling to prefer for common cases or give positive guidance on permitted path shapes, so it falls short of a full 5.

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