garmin_activity_detail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return composition ('summary plus splits, HR zones, weather, and exercise sets') and a conditional availability caveat ('if available'), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or permission requirements.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, then parameter usage, then return composition. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 return values need not be detailed, yet the description helpfully previews them. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter detail tool, though it does not explain how to obtain an activity_id or address edge cases like both parameters being supplied.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining both parameters: activity_id selects a specific activity, and last=True retrieves the most recent activity. It does not clarify ID format or what happens if both are provided, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare integer and boolean fields.

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 clear verb ('deep-dive') and resource ('a single activity'), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like garmin_activities. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of the highest bar for sibling 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?

It tells the agent how to invoke the tool ('Pass activity_id, or set last=True'), but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives such as garmin_activities or garmin_activity_trackpoints. Usage is implied by the 'single activity' scope rather than explicitly stated.

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