garmin_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation returns a list of activity summaries and explains pagination semantics. However, it omits any mention of authentication prerequisites, session requirements, rate limits, or side effects—though 'list' implies a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no superfluous content. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently covers parameter semantics and return contents. The trailing 'etc.' is minor and acceptable given the output schema.

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 has only two optional parameters and an output schema, so the core pagination and return-value context is adequately covered. However, the absence of annotations combined with a likely authentication dependency—suggested by sibling tools like garmin_login and garmin_resume_session—leaves a meaningful gap. An agent would benefit from knowing whether a session must be established before calling 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%, but the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: 'start: index to start from, limit: max number to return.' This adds meaningful semantics that the raw input schema lacks.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List activities from Garmin Connect.' It identifies the tool's core purpose and the returned fields, making it distinct from likely siblings like garmin_activity_details. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied by 'List activities' and the start/limit pagination parameters, so an agent can infer this is for browsing activity summaries. But the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like garmin_activity_details, garmin_activity_types, or garmin_daily_summary.

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