Fitbit Activity Logs

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about cursor-based fetching, pagination, and privacy modes, but these do not contradict annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Conciseness without sacrificing essential information.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers key aspects: cursor, pagination, privacy, and scope requirement. Minor omission: does not explicitly state that it returns a list of activity logs, but 'List' implies this.

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 88%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description mentions 'before/after cursor, pagination and privacy modes' but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Fitbit activity logs', and mentions key features (cursor, pagination, privacy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fitbit_get_activity (single activity) or fitbit_list_sleep.

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 mentions 'Requires activity scope' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fitbit_get_activity or fitbit_daily_summary. No explicit exclusionary notes or alternatives are given.

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