get_activity_split_summaries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to state any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or side effects. The description is entirely silent on behavior.

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 short (5 characters in Chinese), but this brevity sacrifices informational content. It is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; there is room to add value without verbosity.

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 crowded sibling context (dozens of activity-related tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not differentiate the tool, explain what the summaries contain, or hint at the output.

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?

The sole parameter activity_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on its role or constraints. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond the parameter type and name.

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 '活动分段汇总' is a Chinese translation of the tool name, adding no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'split summaries' entails or how it differs from siblings like get_activity_splits or get_activity_typed_splits. The purpose remains vague and reliant on the name alone.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity_splits, get_activity_typed_splits, or get_activity_detail. The context of activity splits is implied but not explicitly steered.

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