get_activity_details

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

The description implies a read-only operation by listing what data is returned, which is consistent with the tool name. However, since no annotations are provided, the description could better disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or that the activity must belong to the authenticated user. The current description is adequate but leaves some transparency gaps.

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 concise with three sentences and a docstring-style parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (what the tool does) and then provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low complexity (single integer parameter), no nested objects, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, lists key return fields, states how to obtain the required ID, and documents the parameter. There is no missing information needed for the agent to successfully invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents the sole parameter activity_id with a clear description ('The numeric id of the activity'), adding meaning beyond the schema. The description of what data the tool returns also helps the agent understand the parameter's role.

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 tool retrieves full details for one activity and lists specific metrics (distance, time, pace, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('activity details'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_activities, get_last_activity, and get_activity_splits.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to first get the activity ID from list_activities or get_last_activity, providing a clear usage prerequisite. It also lists the required parameter activity_id, guiding the agent on what to provide.

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