get_activities

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 adds meaningful behavioral context: newest-first ordering, pagination behavior, the presence of an event_type field, and domain guidance about filtering for races rather than excluding "training." It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects, but "Get" and the browsing framing make that clear enough.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, then a valuable but focused note on event_type semantics, and finally clear parameter documentation. Every section earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 values. It covers pagination, ordering, the main selection criterion versus siblings, parameter semantics, and important field-level filtering guidance. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 fully compensates by documenting both parameters: start is the starting index with default 0, and limit is the maximum number of activities with default 20 and max 100. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Retrieves a paginated list of activities ordered newest-first." It clearly distinguishes this tool from date-filtered siblings by explicitly stating it is for browsing when date-range filtering is not needed, and it names get_activities_by_date as the alternative.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: "when you do not need to filter by date range, or as a complement to get_activities_by_date." This gives the agent a clear selection rule and names the relevant sibling, which is strong usage guidance.

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