Get activity sets

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: rest periods are omitted by default and only appear with include_rests, and set_number is the handle that edit_activity_sets consumes to correct or delete sets. That cross-tool semantics is non-obvious and valuable, though nothing is said about pagination or failure modes for non-strength activities beyond the scope note.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the return contract, then the set_number/edit_activity_sets linkage, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape documentation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still summarizes the payload. Scope limits, the default for rests, and the sibling alternatives are all covered — nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the behavioral effect of include_rests (rests are excluded unless it is set) and by grounding activity_id in the workflow (its role as the key passed to edit_activity_sets).

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return a strength activity's sets') and enumerates the returned content (category, name, reps, weight in kg, duration, total volume). It actively distinguishes itself from siblings, noting that runs/rides/swims have no sets and pointing to get_activity_laps instead.

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?

Explicit routing: use this for strength activities, use get_activity_laps for runs/rides/swims, and use recent_strength_sessions when you want the last few sessions in one call. Both the when and the when-not are stated with the alternative named.

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