Activity detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by enumerating the exact data fields returned (type, timing, distance, etc.), giving the agent a concrete expectation. The 'detail' parameter description also warns that 'full' can be enormous, which is useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, with the main purpose in the first and a prerequisite in the second. No repetition of schema details, no fluff. The content is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple complexity (2 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete. It lists the return contents, specifies the prerequisite workflow, and the parameter descriptions handle the summary/full choice. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%: both parameters have meaningful descriptions. The description adds extra guidance by pointing to garmin_list_activities for finding the ID, which reinforces the activity_id semantics beyond the schema. The 'detail' enum is thoroughly explained with use-case advice.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full record of one recorded workout'), and the method (by activity ID). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on individual activity details versus daily summaries or user profile data.

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 explicitly instructs to find the ID with garmin_list_activities first, giving a clear usage workflow. The parameter description for 'detail' further explains when to use 'summary' vs 'full', providing effective context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling getters like garmin_get_daily_summary, so it misses a full 'when-not-to-use' clause.

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