get_activity_splits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is "Garmin Connect, read-only" (redundant with annotations) plus an inapplicable date-format note; it says nothing about how splits are returned or what an empty/missing-splits response means.

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?

Short and front-loaded, which is good. But the parenthetical's date-format sentence earns no place at all given the single activity_id parameter, so the brevity reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.

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 values needn't be explained, but the definition is still incomplete for correct invocation: the required activity_id is unexplained and the tool is indistinguishable from three closely related splits siblings.

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 carries the full burden for activity_id, yet it never mentions it — not the accepted integer-or-string form, nor where to obtain an ID (e.g., from get_activities). The one sentence it does offer, about YYYY-MM-DD dates, is irrelevant to the only parameter present.

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?

"Return activity splits" names a specific verb and resource, but it does nothing to separate this from the near-identical siblings get_activity_typed_splits and get_activity_split_summaries. An agent scanning the list has no way to tell which splits tool it wants from this text alone.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_activity_typed_splits, get_activity_split_summaries, or get_activity_details. The only contextual note is a date-format remark that doesn't even apply, since the sole parameter is an activity_id.

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