get_activity_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool returns, but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. For a parameterless getter, the description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 short phrase in Chinese, which is concise. However, it is not structured (no sentences, no whitespace) and could benefit from being in English for broader agent comprehension. It earns its place but is slightly under-specified for a global audience.

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 has no parameters, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is adequate for a simple enumeration tool. It tells the agent what it returns. The context of sibling tools implies this is a reference list, which is complete enough.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. The description is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 '所有可用运动类型' (all available activity types) clearly states the tool returns a list of activity types. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_activity (which retrieves details for a specific activity) and activity_detail (which provides detailed info). The verb 'get' is implied but the resource is specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. For example, it does not say 'use this to discover available activity types before creating an activity' or 'this is a read-only catalog lookup.'

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