garmin_activities

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses result ordering ('newest first') and the aggregate fields returned, which are genuine behavioral traits not derivable from the schema. It omits any mention of result caps, pagination, or account/auth requirements for a 1-year-max window.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with purpose and scope before the metric list; no filler or restatement of the name. The field enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data it will get.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema that already documents return structure, the description covers purpose, window, ordering, and content. Only the default-window behavior and any result limits are left unstated.

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 carries the burden for the single 'days' parameter. 'Last N days' does convey that it is a backward-looking time window, but it omits the default of 7 and the 1–365 bounds that the schema supplies structurally.

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 resource (recorded activities) with scope ('last N days, newest first') and enumerates the metrics returned, which clearly separates it from siblings like garmin_workouts_list or garmin_sleep. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: 'recorded activities' suggests completed workouts rather than planned ones, which is the main distinction from the workout siblings, but that contrast is never stated. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to alternatives such as garmin_workouts_list for planned sessions.

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