get_activity_splits

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool retrieves splits but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 very short (one phrase), which is concise but overly minimal. It is not structured with front-loaded key information and leaves out essential details. The use of Chinese may also hinder an English-speaking agent.

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 tool's single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context about how this tool differs from similar split tools and what exactly the output contains beyond the implied pace data.

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 description adds no information about the single parameter (activity_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints.

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 states 'activity splits (per km/mile pace, etc.)' which gives a general idea but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_activity_typed_splits or get_activity_split_summaries. The purpose is vague without specificity about what type of splits are returned.

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. Given the many sibling tools related to splits and activities, the agent has no criteria to decide which tool to invoke.

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