get_activity_level

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a read-only, per-user snapshot, nor whether 'points' and 'weekly goal' are computed or stored values. The 'get_' prefix weakly implies a read, but that is naming convention, not description content.

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?

It is only one short fragment, so there is no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise and reads like a field list rather than a statement of purpose. There is no front-loaded verb to anchor the reader.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the call itself is trivial to invoke. Still, with no annotations at all, the description should say at minimum that this returns the current activity summary for the authenticated user, which it never does.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 enumerates the data involved (activity level, points, weekly goal), which is slightly more informative than the name alone, but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no resource scope. An agent can infer this returns the user's current activity standing, but it is not stated, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_bio_age or get_body_composition.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must guess whether this is a current-snapshot call or something to combine with get_recent_workouts.

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