get_activity_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the metrics are 'derived', suggesting computation, but does not mention rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The brief description is sufficient for a simple read-only tool but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with key information ('Derived metrics for one ride') and lists specific metrics. No unnecessary words or 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's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the returned metrics. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like missing ride or access errors.

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 does not add any detail about the 'ride_id' parameter (e.g., format, required uniqueness). The description only implies it identifies a ride, leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond the schema's basic type.

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 explicitly states 'Derived metrics for one ride' and lists specific metrics (NP/IF/TSS/work, HR & power zone time), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like get_activity_laps or get_activity_streams which provide raw data.

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 for obtaining summary metrics for a single ride but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., compare_activities or analyze_training_load) nor provide exclusions.

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