get_activity_split_summaries

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It only says 'get' without mentioning return format, volume, pagination, error cases, or any read-only cautions, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args block largely duplicates the input schema, adding no real value. Both sentences together are concise, but not every line strongly 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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, so the minimum is present, but the description does not clarify the meaning or format of 'split summaries' relative to sibling functions like get_activity_splits. Since an output schema exists, return documentation is not strictly needed, yet more context about what the summaries represent would make the description complete.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does say 'activity_id: ID of the activity to retrieve split summaries for', which adds a little semantic context over the schema name. However, it does not explain the accepted types or where the activity_id comes from.

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 states a clear verb and resource, 'Get split summaries for an activity', so the agent knows what the tool does at a basic level. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related siblings get_activity_splits and get_activity_typed_splits, leaving a subtle terminology gap.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_activity_splits or get_activity_typed_splits. It only repeats the activity_id parameter in the Args block, which is not a usage guideline.

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