get_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns 'full details and detailed metrics' with examples like Normalized Power and TSS. However, it does not discuss pagination, error conditions, or additional side effects, so the added behavioral context is moderate.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clean Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose—purpose, usage, and parameter definition—without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (single required parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers usage context and alternatives sufficiently. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 and description both describe activity_id as 'The unique ID of the activity' with no additional detail; schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Get full details and detailed metrics for a single activity,' using a specific verb and object that clearly indicates a single-activity retrieval. It contrasts with 'list_activities' by emphasizing 'single activity' and mentions workout metrics, distinguishing it from other sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use when analyzing specific workout metrics (e.g. Normalized Power, TSS, HR zones)' and directs to 'list_activities' for listing multiple activities, providing both positive and negative usage guidance.

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