Get Activity Details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get complete details' without mentioning return format, error handling, authorization requirements, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not elaborated, and no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, even if it lacks contextual depth.

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 description is minimally viable for a simple read tool, but it lacks important contextual details such as what 'complete details' includes, whether it returns the full activity object, or any limitations. With no output schema, the description should have provided more clarity about the return value. This falls short of a 4 but is not as severe as a 2 given the straightforward nature of the operation.

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%, with both parameters (apiKey and activityId) already explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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), resource (activity details), and scope (one activity by ID). It implies a distinction from sibling tools like get_activity_intervals or get_activity_streams by saying 'detail lengkap' (complete details), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 such as get_activities or get_activity_streams. The description only states what the tool does, without any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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