get_recent_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that returned fields are 'normalized' and 'sport-aware'; it says nothing about ordering, read-only nature, pagination or truncation at the limit cap, or rate limits. An output schema existing removes the need to describe return values, but the tool's operational behavior remains undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource plus its key output trait come first. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 tool is simple (two optional integer parameters, fully documented, with an output schema that covers return values), so not much is strictly required. Still, with no annotations and no sibling routing, the definition leaves the agent to infer when this list tool is the right call versus get_activity_detail.

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 'days' and 'limit' fully documented including defaults and min/max ranges. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource (recent Garmin activities) and hints at the return shape ('sport-aware summary fields'), so an agent can guess it lists activity summaries rather than full detail. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from the obvious sibling get_activity_detail, leaving the list-vs-detail distinction to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_activity_detail or get_full_snapshot, and no note about default lookback windows. The word 'recent' weakly implies a time-bounded list, but nothing explicitly routes the agent.

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