get_activity_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'completed' and 'compact summary' scoping, but does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, incomplete activities, or response details beyond what the output schema provides.

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?

Single compact sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler.

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 output schema present and a single required integer param, the description is almost sufficient. It could add a pointer to list_activities for obtaining valid IDs, but for a simple read-only summary tool it is complete enough.

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 description should carry the parameter burden. It only implies activity_id refers to a completed Garmin activity; it doesn't explain where the ID comes from (e.g., list_activities) or any constraints.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('one completed Garmin activity') with output scope ('compact summary metrics'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities and get_activity_splits, which are list/split-oriented.

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?

It clearly narrows use to a single completed activity, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. That context can be inferred from sibling names but not stated.

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