get_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: date range defaults, default limit, include_unnamed behavior, and fallback to .env credentials. It does not cover error handling, ordering, or pagination, but the key operational defaults and auth fallback are well documented.

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 economically structured: a one-sentence purpose summary followed by a clean Args list. Each line adds concrete information about requiredness, defaults, or formatting, with no redundant or filler content.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: defaults, auth fallback, date format, and the include_unnamed flag. It does not mention ordering or constraints like start_date before end_date, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.

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 explain all parameters, and it does. Every parameter is listed with type, optionality, default, and additional meaning—including the .env fallback for athlete_id and api_key, and the YYYY-MM-DD format for dates. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get a list of activities') on a specific resource ('for an athlete from Intervals.icu'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activity_details or get_activity_raw. The one-line summary plus parameter list makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 clear context on defaults and optional parameters, showing how the tool is typically invoked. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus a sibling such as get_activity_details or get_activity_intervals, so usage guidance relies on inference from the tool name and summary.

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