garmin_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add that the file lands 'on this computer,' clarifying this writes locally rather than remotely. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior when the target file already exists, which is the main residual risk for a download saving to disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and the destination are both stated immediately. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness leaves room for one more sentence of routing or overwrite context at no real cost.

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?

With five parameters, two enums, and no output schema, the definition relies on the schema for format and path details, which it mostly provides. However, nothing tells the agent what the tool returns (file path, filename pattern, confirmation) or how failures surface. Adequate but with clear gaps for a filesystem-writing tool.

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 80% and the schema already documents the id field, the format-per-kind constraint, the default output directory, and the remember_dir behavior. The description adds nothing beyond restating the three supported kinds. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does this much work.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: save an activity, workout, or course as a file. It is instantly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings such as garmin_activity or garmin_trend. It does not name the nearest sibling (e.g., garmin_delete, garmin_upload_course) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the local-export path whereas garmin_activity returns data in-chat. No prerequisites, no mention of when the tool is not appropriate, and no mention of what happens if the activity does not exist.

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