get_garmin_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but provides no details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'summary'. The description lacks depth about behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could include key details like what the summary contains without becoming verbose.

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 tool has one required parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate for basic usage. However, it leaves gaps: it does not define what a 'summary' includes (e.g., distance, duration) or differentiate from siblings. Sibling tools like get_garmin_activity_details suggest there are more detailed alternatives, but no guidance is given.

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%, and the only parameter (activity_id) has no description in the schema. The description adds 'by activity ID', but does not provide format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's type and title. Value added is minimal.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'Garmin Connect activity summary', and the method 'by activity ID'. The verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_garmin_activity_details (which implies more detail) and list_garmin_activities (which returns multiple activities without a specific ID).

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 context (when you have an activity ID and want a summary), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_garmin_activity_details or list_garmin_activities. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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