garmin_list_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the output format (columns). However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, pagination limit) are disclosed beyond what annotations and parameter schema provide.

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 a single focused paragraph with the main purpose first, then a compact list of columns. Every sentence is useful—no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description explains the date range defaults, column output, and activity_type rollup. It lacks mention of sorting (newest first, though that's in the limit description) and total count, but given the presence of an output schema and annotations, it is mostly complete.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the activity_type rollup behavior (e.g., virtual_ride -> 'cycling'), which is not in the schema. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 'List Garmin activities in a date range as a compact table', providing a specific verb and resource. It also includes column details and mentions the relationship to garmin_get_activity_detail, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings.

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 by referencing activity_id 'for garmin_get_activity_detail', hinting at a workflow, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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