get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states what data is included ('splits, segment efforts, and all metrics'), but does not disclose that include_all_efforts defaults to false, meaning segment efforts may be limited unless explicitly requested. It also does not mention any permissions or rate limits, though for a read operation this is less critical.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: one explains the tool's function, the other clarifies a prerequisite step.

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?

For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but leaves ambiguity regarding how it relates to sibling tools like get_activity_laps and get_activity_zones. It does not clarify whether this tool returns laps/zones data or if those siblings are for specialized access. Given the presence of these siblings, more context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only indicating that activity_id comes from list_activities. It does not explain include_all_efforts behavior beyond what the schema already contains, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific activity'. It lists content (splits, segment efforts, metrics) and provides a prerequisite workflow ('Use list_activities first'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_activity_laps or get_activity_zones, which could overlap in scope.

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 gives clear context by instructing to use list_activities first to find IDs. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over get_activity_laps or get_activity_zones, nor any exclusions. Thus it has clear context but no explicit alternatives.

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