garmin_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'private', hinting at authentication requirements, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how to handle missing activities, data freshness, rate limits, or other critical behaviors. The term 'raw' is vague and could mislead about the response format.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Essential information is front-loaded (verb + resource). Perfectly concise for a straightforward tool, though could be expanded without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it fails to provide context for correct invocation: how to obtain the activity_id (e.g., from garmin_recent_activities), what 'raw' entails, or the implications of 'private'. For a tool with one critical parameter and no schema descriptions, the description is too minimal to ensure correct use.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It only says 'by activity ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. Lacks details on the ID format (numeric vs string), how to obtain it, and constraints (e.g., must belong to the authenticated user). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly supply the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Get), resource (raw private activity details), and identifier (by activity ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like garmin_recent_activities and garmin_workouts, which list or manage activities, while this retrieves a specific one. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other detail-fetching tools such as garmin_scheduled_workouts or garmin_heart_rate, which also use IDs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as garmin_recent_activities for listing or garmin_workouts for workout templates. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how to obtain the activity_id (e.g., from recent activities). The description is purely definitional.

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