Activity splits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is per-lap splits, which is useful context, but it doesn't describe the response format, potential size, or any special behavior like pagination. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. The core information is front-loaded, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic idea of the response (per-lap splits) but doesn't elaborate on what fields are included or any prerequisites. It is sufficient for a simple tool but could benefit from a hint about the data structure.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the activity_id parameter. It does mention that the splits are for an activity, implying activity_id is the identifier, but it doesn't provide format, source, or requirements beyond the name. This is minimal compensation.

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 that this tool provides per-lap splits for an activity, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like garmin_activity (full activity details) and garmin_activities (list). It specifies the resource and granularity, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for getting split data specifically, nor does it compare with similar tools like garmin_activity or garmin_last_activity. An agent would have to infer when splits are needed.

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