Retrieve activities for a Garmin Connect gear UUID, limit results up to 1000, and return an empty list when the gear is not found.
limit clamped to 1000; returns [] on a 404 instead of throwing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| gearUUID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding two concrete behavioral details beyond them: `limit` is clamped to 1000, and a 404 returns an empty array instead of throwing. It still omits normal return shape and any auth/rate-limit context, so it is not fully exhaustive.
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 very short and contains no filler, and both clauses are useful behavioral notes. However, it is not front-loaded with purpose or usage information, and the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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 read tool with a required `gearUUID`, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain the tool's purpose, the required identifier, and what is returned. It only covers limit clamping and 404 handling, leaving core context missing.
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% for both parameters. The description adds meaning for `limit` by stating it is clamped to 1000, but it says nothing about the required `gearUUID` parameter, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 never states what the tool does or that it returns activities associated with a gear UUID. It only documents limit clamping and 404 behavior, leaving the tool's purpose to be inferred entirely from the name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as get_gear, get_gear_stats, get_activity_gear, or get_activities. No alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.