get_activity_splits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the operation without explaining return structure, side effects, error behavior, or any constraints beyond requiring an activity_id. The output schema helps but is not described or summarized.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args: activity_id...' line is redundant with the input schema and does not earn its place, though the overall brevity keeps it readable.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to get_activity_typed_splits and get_activity_split_summaries, and the absence of annotations leaves behavioral context thin.

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 parameter meaning. It does say activity_id is 'ID of the activity to retrieve splits for,' but this largely restates the tool's purpose and the schema's property name. It adds no additional detail about format, constraints, or accepted values.

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 and resource: 'Get splits for an activity.' It accurately describes the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_activity_typed_splits and get_activity_split_summaries, so an agent cannot tell which splits variant this tool returns.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple split-related siblings present, the description offers no exclusions, decision criteria, or recommendations, leaving tool selection ambiguous.

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