garmin_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by naming the summary metrics returned and explicitly excluding FIT downloads and GPS tracks, but it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and metric list are front-loaded, followed by the ID source and exclusions.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and annotations already present, the description covers the resource, input source, and important exclusions. It is nearly complete, though it omits any mention of authentication or error conditions.

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% for the single activity_id parameter, so the description must carry extra meaning. It does explain where to obtain the ID (from garmin_activities), which is useful, but it does not clarify format, constraints, or exactly what an activity_id represents beyond the schema's integer 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 states a specific resource and scope: summary measurements for one activity, with named metrics (meters, seconds, bpm, watts, training effect). It distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like garmin_activities and from download-oriented tools by saying it does not download FIT files or return GPS tracks, though it lacks an explicit verb such as "get".

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 a clear prerequisite by telling the agent to use activity_id from garmin_activities, which helps with input sourcing. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings like garmin_api_activity, garmin_api_activity_search, or garmin_api_download_activity; the no-FIT/no-GPS sentence is only a partial exclusion.

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