Get activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — that the default result is a compact summary and that `fields` unlocks other metrics — which goes beyond the annotations, though it stops short of explaining the cost/size tradeoff.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the return-shape caveat. Minimal waste, though the first clause partly echoes the name/title.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. The notable gap is routing: with so many get_activity_* siblings, the definition does not equip an agent to confidently select this tool over the specialized ones.

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 100%, so activity_id and fields are already fully documented in the schema (including the 30-vs-184 field detail). The description restates the fields behavior at a high level without adding syntax or examples beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (get) and resource (activity) plus the lookup key (by its ID) and return scope (detailed information). However, it does not differentiate itself from the many get_activity_* siblings (streams, intervals, power_curve, weather), so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these to choose.

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 gives no when-to-use context and never names an alternative, despite numerous sibling tools that fetch activity-related data. Nothing tells the agent when this core-record tool is preferred over get_activity_streams or the other specialized variants.

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