getActivityLaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the source of truth (original .FIT file), the row granularity (one row per lap), trigger types (manual, auto-lap, workout steps), intensity enum values, the null-means-n/a convention, and the edge case where free-run auto laps may be tagged interval. That is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 content is dense but front-loaded with the return shape, then usage, then the run-specific split/work payload. Nearly every clause carries information, though the field enumeration runs long enough that the key routing sentence is buried mid-block rather than first.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does exhaustively, covering lap rows, foot-sport vs other-sport unit differences, and the optional split/work objects. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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?

There is a single parameter (activityId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds nothing about the identifier's origin or format, leaving this at the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (laps of an activity) plus the data source (.FIT file) and enumerates the returned fields in detail. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling getActivity by noting that getActivity lacks lap data, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the use cases directly ("Use it for intervals and per-km splits") and names the alternative plus the exclusion condition ("getActivity does not have them"). The guidance is explicit about when to prefer this tool over its closest sibling.

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