get_activity_gear

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. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval, and 'used for an activity' explains the association being queried. It does not describe edge cases or error behavior, but with an output schema available, the minimal disclosure is acceptable.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a compact Args section. There is no filler or redundant prose; every part serves a functional role in helping an agent call the tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is retrieved and for which activity. It does not explicitly disambiguate from get_gear, but the phrase 'used for an activity' provides enough contextual distinction. Overall, it is practically complete.

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 for the parameter. It does: 'activity_id: ID of the activity to retrieve gear data for' adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Activity Id' title, clarifying the parameter's role and purpose. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get gear data used for an activity.' It conveys the activity-scoped nature, which helps distinguish it from siblings like get_gear. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 phrasing 'used for an activity' implies this tool is for retrieving gear associated with a specific activity, giving some contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as get_gear, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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