get_activity_split_summaries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not clarify what a split summary is, how it differs from full splits, whether activity ownership is required, or any other behavioral constraints.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args line is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but it is not verbose or bloated.

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?

With close sibling tools (get_activity_splits, get_activity_typed_splits) and no annotations, the definition should clarify the specific data returned and when this variant is appropriate. The output schema may document the return shape, but the missing differentiation leaves the tool contextually incomplete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section defines activity_id as 'ID of the activity to retrieve split summaries for', which gives the parameter a clear functional role beyond the schema's bare 'Activity Id' title. It does not explain the integer/string duality, but for a single simple parameter 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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Get split summaries for an activity', with a single activity_id argument. This is a clear verb+resource pairing, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_activity_splits or get_activity_typed_splits.

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?

No information about when to choose this over the similar get_activity_splits or get_activity_typed_splits tools. The context of use is only implied by the name; there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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