export_activity_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well: it explains non-atomicity across separate HTTP reads, hash verification of local composite bytes, shape validation, manifest reporting of unit conflicts and time-axis ambiguity, raw device units for Tymewear VT/VE, and the source-completeness caveat. This is far richer than the structured fields alone.

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 dense but not bloated; each sentence adds a distinct fact about behavior, alternatives, or caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The paragraph format is harder to scan than bullets, but the information density justifies the length.

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 complex tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers usage context, alternative routing, data-shape guarantees, unit handling, and upstream limitations. The main gaps are the unexplained api_key and expected_athlete_id parameters, but the output schema and rich behavioral detail make the definition substantially 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for stream_types as a filter and for start_index/end_index as a half-open sample range, and it mentions unit hints separately from source declarations. However, api_key, expected_athlete_id, and activity_id are not explained, leaving notable gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export complete raw activity data to the configured local artifact.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling read tools by positioning this as the full raw export, and it even names get_artifact_chunk as the retrieval path for clients without filesystem access. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this after a compact read when the client needs all stream samples and interval records.' It also names an alternative, get_artifact_chunk, for a specific condition. It does not exhaustively list when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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