get_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning the 'minimal' parameter's purpose to 'reduce context usage,' which hints at performance optimization. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema defaults), or what 'activities' entail (e.g., types, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but insufficient disclosure.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and a key usage tip. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and a performance tip, but for a data retrieval tool with multiple siblings, it lacks context on authentication, error handling, return format, or differentiation from alternatives. This leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by briefly explaining the 'minimal' parameter's effect ('strips social metrics, metadata'), but this is redundant with the schema's description. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get logged-in athlete activities with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('logged-in athlete activities'), and scope ('with optional filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_activity' (singular) or 'get_club_activities', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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 provides some usage guidance by mentioning 'Use minimal=true for large datasets to reduce context usage,' which implies a performance consideration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activity' (for a single activity) or 'get_club_activities' (for club-specific activities). The guidance is helpful but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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