get_activity_intervals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the tool gets data (read-only) and returns a JSON string, but does not discuss permissions, error conditions, or any side effects. It adds some context (interval types) but lacks depth on behavior beyond the obvious 'get' operation.

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, purpose, args section, and return note. It is relatively concise and not repetitive, though it could be trimmed slightly (e.g., 'Essential for...' is optional).

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the data will contain and the primary use case. It doesn't cover potential limitations or relationships to other interval-related tools, but this is not critical given the low complexity.

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% (activity_id is fully described). The description repeats the parameter with 'unique ID' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 retrieves structured interval data for an activity, listing specific content (targets, actual performance, interval types). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like get_activity_details (general details) or get_activity_streams (time-series data).

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 provides clear context that this tool is for analyzing structured workouts and training compliance, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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