get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('取得'), but does not disclose behaviors such as error responses, required permissions, or whether it returns full activity data like splits. The basic getter nature is conveyed, but additional transparency is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and it is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description provides minimal context—no mention of return structure, common error cases, or authorization. While adequate for a straightforward getter, it leaves gaps that could be filled to help the agent anticipate behavior.

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 schema has 100% coverage for activity_id, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('取得します' = fetches) and identifies the resource ('特定のアクティビティの詳細情報' = detailed info for a specific activity), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_activities (plural list) and get_athlete (different resource).

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 implies usage for fetching a single activity's details, contrasting with get_activities which presumably lists activities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions.

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