get_activity_raw

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns raw, unmodified JSON and is temporary in nature, and it explains the API key fallback to .env. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no write side effects, but the 'get' + raw-return framing makes this a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with a diagnostic label, followed by a concise behavior statement and a short usage context. The Args section is compact and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 that an output schema exists, the return value does not need to be described further. The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, its temporary lifespan, both parameters, and its relationship to the affected siblings, leaving no essential gap.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining activity_id as the Intervals.icu activity ID and api_key as optional with a clear fallback to API_KEY from .env. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles and types.

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 opens with 'DIAGNOSTIC TOOL (temporary)' and states the exact action: 'return the raw JSON the Intervals.icu API sends back for one activity, unmodified.' It explicitly names get_activity_details/get_activities as the tools whose blank-field behavior it diagnoses, clearly distinguishing it from those siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: debug why get_activity_details/get_activities show blank fields due to a field-name mismatch. It also says 'Safe to remove once the mapping bug is confirmed fixed,' which communicates that this is not a general-purpose tool and should only be used for that investigation.

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