get_activity_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds useful context about the content of the response (laps, multisport legs), but doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or any side effects. The information provided is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening statement, a single-line argument explanation, and a memorable rationale for laps. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation. The description covers the main use case and even provides a motivational example for laps. It lacks explicit limitations or comparison to get_activity_streams, but is sufficient for a low-complexity, single-parameter tool.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining 'activity_id' is 'The activity's id, as returned by list_activities', providing both meaning and source.

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 clearly states 'Full detail for one activity: summary, laps, and multisport legs', which specifies the verb (get), resource (activity detail), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities or get_activity_streams.

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 explains when laps matter ('eight quarter-mile repeats look identical to a steady run in the summary numbers alone'), implying this tool is for interval-level detail. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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