get_activity_splits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, giving no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The verb 'get' implies a read, but this is not explicit, and there is no mention of error conditions or return behavior. This is a minimal disclosure that does not go beyond the literal action.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The parameter explanation is redundant with the schema but does not add fluff. It is well-structured as a docstring, though the brevity limits the information conveyed. For a one-parameter tool, this length is appropriate, but it could be more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

The description is incomplete in the context of the tool ecosystem. It does not clarify what type of splits are returned (e.g., lap splits, typed splits, summaries), nor does it address the existence of sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific use cases. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the tool's role among the many split-related tools is ambiguous. An agent cannot confidently choose this tool over its siblings without additional information.

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?

The description says 'ID of the activity to retrieve splits for', which adds only slightly to the schema's 'Activity Id' field. It explains the parameter's role but provides no additional context about format, constraints, or typical usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate with richer semantics, but it essentially repeats what the parameter name already conveys. This is insufficient.

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 states a clear verb-resource pairing: 'Get splits for an activity'. It identifies the resource (activity splits) and the action (get). However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_activity_typed_splits or get_activity_split_summaries, which likely also retrieve split data. This is a clear purpose but lacks the specificity to distinguish among similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. An agent must infer the appropriate usage, which is risky given the number of split-related tools available in the sibling list.

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