get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists returned data types but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which avoids verbosity. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, making it less useful. It is not optimally structured as it lacks any breakdown or front-loading of key information.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It only hints at return fields but does not cover parameters, usage context, or behavioral details. The existence of an output schema slightly reduces burden for return values, but the description still fails to provide a complete picture.

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 description provides zero information about the four parameters (raw, start_date, end_date, days_back). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so entirely, leaving the agent without semantic clues for parameter usage.

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 indicates the tool retrieves activity data (assessment, steps, calories), which aligns with the name 'get_activity'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and is vague about the exact resource. Among sibling tools, it distinguishes itself by mentioning specific metrics but is still somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_summary or get_status. There are no prerequisites, limitations, or recommendations for appropriate usage contexts.

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