get_activity_laps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does state the data returned (per-lap pace, HR, cadence) and its granularity relative to the aggregate tool. It stops short of stating it is a read-only operation or how empty/partial lap data behaves, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose plus the sibling contrast are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by either defining scope or routing the agent.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and when to prefer it over the sibling. It could say more about the shape of per-lap data or missing laps, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100% for the single activityId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get per-lap splits for one activity') and pins the scope precisely as individual interval reps with pace, HR and cadence. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_activity_details, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative ('rather than the aggregated totals get_activity_details returns') and gives the selecting condition ('essential for analysing whether an interval session held pace or faded'). The when-to-use versus sibling is fully explicit.

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