garmin_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals the returned fields, which is useful, but omits pagination behavior (default limit=20 is in schema only), whether results are sorted, permission scoping, and rate limits. For a read-list tool with no annotations at all, this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose first, return fields second. Efficient, but the return-field list is a bare enumeration rather than a structured breakdown and slightly inflates length for a simple list tool.

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 explaining return values is optional and the field enumeration is redundant-but-harmless. However, with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves pagination, date format, and activity_type value space undocumented, which is a real gap for a 4-param tool in a crowded sibling set.

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% across all 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names 'type and date range' filters, loosely mapping to activity_type, start_date, and end_date, but supplies no format details (e.g., ISO dates), no enum values for activity_type, and never mentions the limit parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List activities') with scope qualifiers (optional filters by type and date range). Clearly distinguishable from garmin_activity_detail, garmin_trends, and garmin_week_summary by its listed-record purpose. Missing explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb+resource is precise.

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 implies usage through 'optional filters by type and date range', giving a soft context, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_activity_detail, garmin_trends, or garmin_query. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is provided.

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