get_activity_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that map data is returned. It does not describe the return format (e.g., coordinates, polyline, URL), potential error conditions, or behavior when an activity has no GPS track. This leaves significant unknown behavioral aspects.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler and the core function front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could include a bit more detail without significant length. The structure itself is effective.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the 'map data' actually contains, such as a sequence of GPS points or a polyline. It also does not note dependencies like the activity requiring GPS recording. While the input is simple, the return value is underspecified, leaving an agent guessing about the response structure.

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%, and the description only repeats 'activity_id' without explaining how to obtain or validate it. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and integer type. The description could have mentioned that the ID comes from get_activities or similar, but it does not.

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 identifies the tool as returning map/GPS track data for a specific activity, using the activity_id parameter. It is specific about the resource (activity map/GPS track) and distinguishable from siblings like get_activity_detail or get_activities. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity_detail or get_fitness_activities. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the activity needing recorded GPS data, or when this tool would be inappropriate. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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