get_activity_weather

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that units follow the Garmin account's measurement system, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention any side effects (likely none for a read operation), error conditions, or what happens if the activity has no weather data. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides a note about units, and finally documents the parameter. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains the data returned (temp, humidity, wind) and the unit system. It doesn't detail the output structure, but the output schema likely covers that. The only gap is not mentioning what happens if no weather data is available, but that's minor.

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. It explains that activity_id is the numeric Garmin ID and references get_recent_activities for obtaining it, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. This is helpful for the agent to know how to source the parameter.

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 retrieves weather conditions recorded during an activity, listing specific data types (temp, humidity, wind). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on weather data, which is unique among the listed tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage by requiring an activity_id from get_recent_activities, which provides context on when to use it (after fetching activities). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the dependency on get_recent_activities gives some guidance. No explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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