get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently describes the return contents and even discloses an edge case: event_type is omitted for very old activities that pre-date event type support. It does not discuss errors or auth, but for a single-parameter read operation the described behavior is substantial.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence. The subsequent field list and event_type explanation are relevant and non-redundant, though the information could be slightly more structured.

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 simple single-parameter getter, the description is largely complete: it names the input, summarizes the output, and flags an important API-specific behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to enumerate return fields further. It could be more complete by explaining when this tool is preferable to sibling activity-detail tools.

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 does add meaning by explaining that activity_id is 'ID of the activity to retrieve,' which goes beyond the schema's bare property name. However, it does not specify the expected format, source, or how to obtain valid IDs, leaving meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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 'Get detailed information for a single activity,' which names a specific verb, a concrete resource type, and the singular scope. It further clarifies the resource by listing returned fields, and the 'single activity' wording differentiates it from sibling list methods like get_activities and get_activities_by_date.

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 when to use the tool: when a specific activity_id is known and a comprehensive summary is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_activity_splits, get_activity_weather, or get_activity_gear, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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