garmin_export_activities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the output format (CSV with header row and one row per activity), ordering ('newest last'), and truncation behavior. This gives the agent a solid sense of what will happen when the tool is called.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into three useful sentences covering format, ordering, and truncation handling. The phrase 'the export Garmin makes awkward' adds tone but little factual value, keeping this just shy of perfect.

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?

The output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It does cover format, ordering, and truncation. However, the complete absence of parameter descriptions in the schema means the description needed to explain start/end date formats and activity_type semantics, which it fails to do. An agent could call the tool with malformed dates or an unsupported activity type.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references a 'date range' and mentions narrowing the range, but it does not explain the expected format for start/end or the meaning of activity_type. Two of the three parameters remain effectively unexplained.

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 clearly specifies a verb and resource: 'Export activities in a date range as CSV.' This is specific and easily distinguishes the tool from most Garmin siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar activity tools like garmin_activities, relying instead on the CSV format and date-range framing.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as garmin_activities or garmin_activities_by_date. The only usage-related instruction is 'Narrow the range if the response comes back truncated,' which addresses response handling after invocation, not tool selection.

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