get_activity_details

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It only states the functionality without addressing safety or resource impact, which is a notable gap.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second defines the parameter. No extraneous information is present, and it is front-loaded effectively.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are defined there), and the tool has only one parameter, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or scope (e.g., user ownership), but overall it 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 parameters, but the description adds meaningful context: 'activity_id: The activity's numeric Garmin ID, as returned by get_recent_activities.' This clarifies the source and format of the parameter, beyond what the schema title 'Activity Id' provides.

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 returns 'Detailed metrics for one activity, including splits and HR zones,' which specifies the verb (retrieve details) and resource (one activity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recent_activities that list activities.

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 provides guidance on obtaining the activity_id ('as returned by get_recent_activities'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include any when-not-to-use scenarios. The usage is implied for when detailed metrics of a specific activity are needed.

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