garmin_activity

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict these; it implies a read operation, aligning with readOnlyHint. However, it adds minimal behavioral detail: it mentions 'raw=true returns the full payload including chart samples', which hints at the response format and the effect of the raw parameter. But it does not disclose what the default response omits, nor does it explain the extensive payload or rate-limits. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not deep transparency.

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 very short (two clauses) and front-loads the core purpose. It is concise, with no filler words. However, it might be considered under-specified rather than concise, but for the length it has, every word is used efficiently. The structure is simple and to the point.

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 has an output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description is minimal and does not cover key aspects like how to get the activity_id, what the default response excludes, or when to use raw vs non-raw. With 34 sibling tools, there is a need for more context to differentiate. The lack of parameter descriptions in the schema increases the burden on the description, which it does not fully meet, but the output schema and annotations help. Thus, a 3 is fair.

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 clarify parameter semantics. The description only mentions 'raw=true' and 'full payload', but does not explain what activity_id is or what format it expects. The name 'activity_id' is self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not elaborate on where the ID comes from or how to obtain it. The raw parameter's semantics are partially clarified (returns full payload), but the default behavior is not described. This is a clear gap given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 states 'One activity in detail' which conveys the basic purpose (fetching a single activity details), but it is vague about the exact resource and scope. It does not explicitly mention that it requires an activity_id (though the schema indicates it) nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like garmin_activities or garmin_last_activity. The description is a short sentence that lacks a specific verb like 'Retrieves' and does not clarify what makes this tool distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that this should be used after getting a list of activities from garmin_activities, nor does it explain the trade-off between raw=true and default behavior. There is no implicit or explicit context that helps an agent decide between this and garmin_activity_splits or garmin_activity_weather. This is a significant gap.

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