get_activity_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a retrieval operation via 'get' and 'detail', but it does not explicitly confirm read-only/side-effect-free behavior or mention auth or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 compact: one purpose sentence followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every clause contributes either to what the tool does or how to populate the parameter.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return structure. The single parameter is adequately explained and the tool's scope is clear. It would be more complete with explicit alternative routing and behavioral caveats, but for a one-parameter read tool it is sufficiently usable.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that activity_id is 'the activityId from get_activities', giving the agent a concrete source and meaning. It does not elaborate on formatting constraints, but with only one parameter this is sufficient for correct use.

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 names the specific resource ('one activity') and the data returned ('splits and heart-rate detail'). The parameter note ties it to get_activities, clearly establishing this as a detail endpoint rather than a list or summary tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns', which keeps it from being perfect.

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 only usage guidance is the parameter hint that activity_id comes from get_activities, which implies the proper workflow of first listing activities and then requesting details for one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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