activity_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the core retrieval operation; it is not misleading but contributes little extra.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and the key qualifier 'by ID' that differentiates it from list operations.

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 simple fetch-by-ID tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations declaring safety and idempotence, the minimal description is sufficient. The return value is not specified but the 'get' verb in the tool name leaves little ambiguity; the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%; both 'activityId' and 'intervals' are documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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) with a clear resource ('one Intervals activity') and retrieval method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from siblings like activities_list, which presumably returns multiple activities.

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 implies the obvious usage context: use this when you need a single activity by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one' and 'by ID' provide clear context and the get-by-ID pattern is self-explanatory among the sibling tools.

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