get_activity_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Details' without explaining whether this is a safe read operation, what the response contains, what happens for invalid IDs, or any authentication requirements.

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 one short sentence with no filler and the key identifier is front-loaded. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the expense of needed context.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what 'details' means, how this tool relates to get_activities or get_activity_map, or whether a single activity_id is sufficient.

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% description coverage for activity_id, and the description only repeats the parameter name in parentheses. It does not explain what an activity is, where a valid activity_id comes from, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type.

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 that the tool returns details for a single activity identified by activity_id, which distinguishes it from plural list tools like get_activities. However, it does not explicitly address siblings like get_activity_map, and it lacks a direct verb such as 'returns'.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activities, get_fitness_activities, or get_activity_map. There is no mention of prerequisites like obtaining an activity_id from a prior list call.

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