get_activity_streams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it fails to disclose critical operational traits.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples without redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints. While the schema covers inputs well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters (id, keys, key_by_type). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example stream types (e.g., heartrate, watts) but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('activity streams') with specific examples of what streams contain (GPS, heart rate, power, cadence, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like get_activity (which likely returns metadata) by focusing on stream data, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity (for metadata) or get_activities (for lists). The description implies usage for retrieving sensor data streams but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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