get_activity_details

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds transparent details: default inclusions, split computation logic for single-lap activities, and that exercise sets are excluded by default. No contradictions with annotations.

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 clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses natural language with reasonable brevity, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). No redundant information.

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 adequately explains tool behavior (default inclusions, special cases) and is complete for a fetch tool with this complexity. No missing critical information.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., why include_exercise_sets defaults false, split computation nuance) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 gets comprehensive details for a specific activity, differentiating it from sibling tools like query_activities which likely return summaries. It specifies what is included by default and what requires explicit request.

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 explains parameter behaviors (e.g., exercise sets only when requested, splits computed for single lap) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_training_effect or compare_activities. Usage context is implied but not contrasted.

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