get_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds minimal value by indicating recency and pagination, but does not explain ordering, the scope of 'activities', what data is returned, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence and is efficiently front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical pagination note is compact, though slightly cryptic. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is not complete enough for an agent to correctly choose this tool among many sibling activity-related tools. It lacks a definition of 'activities', any usage conditions, and clarification on how it differs from get_fitness_activities or get_activity_detail.

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 must compensate for the undocumented limit and start parameters. It does identify them as pagination controls, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not explain how start is used as an offset or what the default behavior implies.

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 the tool lists recent activities and mentions pagination, which defines a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish 'activities' from siblings like get_fitness_activities or get_activity_detail, so the meaning of 'activities' remains ambiguous.

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 is given about when to use this tool instead of similar tools such as get_fitness_activities or get_daily_summary. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate or inappropriate to call it.

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