compare_activities

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by mentioning output format (delta%, narrative hint). However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, auth requirements, or any side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Perfectly concise.

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 doesn't need to detail return values entirely, but it lacks context on ride count limits, metric definitions, and error handling. Adequate but leaves ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning. It mentions 'rides' and 'metrics' but does not explain ride_ids format or valid metric values. The default null for metrics is implied but not clarified.

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 compares 2-5 rides across metrics with specific outputs (per-metric delta% and narrative hint). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_training_load or get_activity_summary by focusing on multi-ride comparison.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_summary for single rides or analyze_training_load for training load. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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