get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' but doesn't specify what that includes, whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function and key constraint, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (retrieving detailed activity data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential error conditions, or behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'include_all_efforts'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the 'id' parameter is required. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific activity by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('activity'), and key constraint ('by ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_activities' or 'get_segment_efforts,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_activities' for browsing activities or 'get_segment_efforts' for activity-related data, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.

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