garmin_get_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., possible error format) but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or permissions. Since annotations are rich, the description adds only marginal value.

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 with a clear docstring structure (Args/Returns). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal sentences 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?

Given the tool has one required parameter and an output schema, the description provides a sufficiently complete overview of inputs and outputs. However, it does not mention the language (Spanish) which might confuse non-Spanish agents, and it omits handling of optional parameters beyond the default.

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% for parameters, so the description must compensate. It lists activity_id and response_format with valid values (markdown|json) and explains returned metrics (distancia, duracion, etc.). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though the description could be more explicit about the enum values for response_format.

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 the tool returns details of a specific Garmin activity, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like garmin_get_activities (which lists activities) by focusing on a concrete 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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific activity_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like garmin_get_activities or garmin_activity_splits. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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