garmin_activities

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses truncation behavior ('truncation is disclosed with narrowing advice') and describes the output structure ('One row per session, each carrying the activity_id'). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining result-set limits and the relationship to garmin_activity.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Browse the log and get activity IDs'). Each sentence adds essential information: purpose, output format, and filtering/truncation behavior. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the tool has four optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality, filtering options, truncation behavior, and the connection to garmin_activity. It doesn't mention default date ranges or limit defaults, but these are documented in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a read-only browsing 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 50%, with start_date and end_date having explicit date format descriptions. The description mentions 'Filter by date range and sport,' which adds context for sport and date parameters, but it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (min/max/default). The truncation hint partially compensates, but the tool could be more explicit about how limit interacts with truncation.

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: 'Browse the log and get activity IDs.' It specifies the resource (the log) and the action (browse/get IDs), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like garmin_activity by noting the IDs are what that tool accepts. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'Filter by date range and sport; truncation is disclosed with narrowing advice.' This indicates when filters should be applied to avoid truncation. It also implicitly guides the user to use garmin_activity for further details on each activity. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with alternatives like garmin_log.

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