atividades_recentes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine operational context the annotations do not: the 1–42 day window limit and, importantly, that Strava-sourced activities are invisible via the API and require a Garmin sync — a data-freshness gotcha an agent would otherwise misread as 'no activities'.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its metric list come first, and the data-source caveat follows. No filler; the only slight wasted opportunity is that the caveat could be sharper about what the agent should report when data is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the metric enumeration plus the Strava/Garmin sync caveat cover the main failure mode for a read-only aggregate tool. The remaining gap is the unexplained required 'atleta' parameter.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify 'dias' with an explicit 1–42 range beyond the bare integer schema, but the required 'atleta' parameter receives no explanation at all (identifier format, whether it must match a value from listar_atletas). Partial compensation justifies a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a summary of completed activities over the last N days, enumerating the metrics returned (duration, HR, load, HR zones, RPE). An agent can tell it is a read-only aggregate report rather than a CRUD tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like listar_treinos.

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 bounds usage ('últimos N dias (1 a 42)') and notes a data-source caveat (Strava imports won't appear; athlete must sync via Garmin). However, it never says when to prefer this aggregate summary over listar_treinos or what to do if the range is exceeded — usage is implied rather than routed.

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