get_activity_splits

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: the tool returns 'compact' metrics and is intended only for 'completed' activities, which informs expectations about response size and eligibility constraints.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Get') and includes relevant qualifiers ('compact', 'one completed') that matter for tool selection.

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?

With one simple parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for proper tool selection and invocation. It explains the core purpose and key constraint without unnecessary detail.

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%, but the single parameter activity_id is self-explanatory and the description reinforces that it refers to a completed Garmin activity. However, the description does not explain the ID format or source, so it only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('compact lap and interval metrics') with a clear scope ('one completed Garmin activity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_activity_summary by focusing on laps/splits rather than overall summary data.

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 phrase 'for one completed Garmin activity' conveys a clear condition for use, implying this tool is appropriate when the activity is finished and the user needs lap/interval-level details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough to avoid obvious misuse compared to siblings.

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