get_activity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read operation ('Return') and lists the content categories included, which is useful. It does not address edge cases, error behavior, authentication needs, or whether any data is modified, though these are less critical for a simple getter.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary action and then packs the return scope into a compact parenthetical list. Every word earns its place.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this simple tool is mostly well described: the purpose and return categories are clear. It lacks guidance on where activity_id comes from and any output shape details, but for a low-complexity getter the description is nearly sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter activity_id is only documented in the schema as an integer. The description adds minimal semantic value by saying 'one activity', implying the ID identifies the target activity. It does not explain how to obtain the ID, format expectations, or any relationship to list_activities.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return full detail for one activity'. The parenthetical enumerates concrete fields (splits, pace, HR, power, elevation, segments), which clarifies what 'full detail' means. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_activities or get_activity_streams, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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: call this when you need complete detail for a single activity identified by an activity_id. It does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, such as telling users to prefer list_activities for summaries or get_activity_streams for raw stream data. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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