garmin_get_activities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a string with a list of activities or an error, and explains the response format parameter. However, it does not disclose ordering (likely most recent first) or any potential pagination/rate limits. Contributes some value beyond annotations but is minimal.

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 concise and well-structured, using a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 listing tool with two parameters and annotations providing safety clues, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format. However, it lacks mention of ordering (likely most recent first) and any default behavior, which would improve completeness. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description states return type as string, which is sufficient.

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. It explicitly lists the arguments: limit (1-50) and response_format (markdown|json), adding constraints and enum values. This clarifies the parameters beyond the schema. Could mention defaults (limit=10, response_format=markdown) which are in schema but not in description.

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 states that the tool lists the latest registered activities with summarized metrics. It specifies the verb (list), resource (activities), and scope (summarized metrics). This distinguishes it from siblings like garmin_get_activity, which retrieves a single activity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for listing recent activities, but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool suggestions. The sibling tools are varied, so more context would help an AI agent decide.

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