get_activity_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the set of metrics included in the summary, but it does not explain aggregation over days, cross-source deduplication, or how source_priority conflicts are resolved.

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 a single well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to stating what is summarized, with no filler.

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 five parameters, source merging, deduplication, timezone handling, and no output schema, the definition is under-specified for correct invocation. It does not explain default time windows, output shape, or how cross-source conflicts affect results.

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 60%, below the high-coverage threshold, and the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not clarify the 'days' window, timezone behavior, or how source/deduplicate/source_priority interact, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific verb and resource: summarize recent activity metrics including movement, distance, calories, floors, and heart-rate zones. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_daily_summary or get_health_snapshot.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_summary, get_health_snapshot, or get_trends. The agent must infer usage from the word 'summary' alone, with no exclusions or prerequisite context.

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