garmin_activity_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention return format, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description focuses on parameters but omits key behavioral context.

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: two sentences plus a bullet list, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers basic functionality but omits details about the return structure, error responses, and prerequisites. It is sufficient for a simple use case but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'activity_id' as 'The Garmin activity ID' and 'fields' with supported values ('splits', 'hrZones', 'laps', 'gps') and default behavior ('Omit to return the basic summary only'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed metrics for a single activity by ID,' providing a specific verb, resource, and identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'garmin_activities' (presumably listing activities) and others.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a single activity by ID, and explains the optional 'fields' parameter to include extra data sections or omit for a basic summary. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a list or different metrics tool would be more appropriate.

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