activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic purpose and parameter hints. It does not disclose whether the list is comprehensive or paginated, what date format is expected, whether the operation is read-only, or any authentication/rate-limit constraints. The description is too minimal to give an AI agent adequate behavioral expectations.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information (list, date range, type filter) is front-loaded. However, it is terse and lacks structured sections (e.g., purpose vs. usage). For a non-English description, it may be less accessible to some agents, but it achieves high information density with no 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?

Given 3 parameters (none required), an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description needs to provide enough context for correct invocation. It covers basic purpose and parameter hints but omits details like pagination, ordering, return format (beyond what output schema gives), and how to differentiate from similar tools like 'get_activities_fordate' or 'activity_detail'. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the overall completeness is lacking.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by associating 'start' and 'end' with the date range, and 'activity_type' with the parenthetical examples (running/cycling). However, it does not specify date format (e.g., ISO 8601), whether activity_type accepts multiple values, or that all parameters are optional. The partial compensation earns a 3.

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 translates to 'Activity list — activities within a specified date range (running/cycling etc.)', which clearly states the tool's verb (list), resource (activities), and scope (date range, optional type filter). Among siblings like 'get_activity' (singular) or 'count_activities', this tool is uniquely described as a list operation, making its purpose distinct.

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 when to use the tool (to list activities within a date range) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. For example, it does not mention that 'get_activity' is for a single activity detail or that 'count_activities' is for counting. Without exclusions or alternatives, usage is only inferred.

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