get_activities_around

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that activities are retrieved 'chronologically surrounding' the reference activity and that a JSON string is returned. While read-only is implied, it is not explicitly stated; however, the read nature is clear and there is no contradiction with annotations (none present).

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 well-structured with a summary, detailed explanation, and Args/Returns sections. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences (both state the core 'before/after' behavior), but overall it is concise and every sentence adds context.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return type, with no gaps. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return structure. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly and understand the result.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema (activity_id as reference, count as number before/after with default 5), adding little beyond what the schema already states. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get activities before and after a specific activity' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_activities or get_activity_details by emphasizing the contextual 'surrounding' aspect, making the tool's unique purpose clear.

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 explicitly states use cases ('useful for understanding training context, progression, or finding related workouts'), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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