list_garmin_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the 'limit' is capped at 100, which is a behavioral constraint, but does not disclose other traits such as return format, pagination behavior beyond offset, rate limits, or auth requirements. The term 'recent' is vague and undefined.

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 brief: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. Every sentence adds value, with front-loaded purpose and structured parameter details. The example activity types are useful without being 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?

The tool has low complexity with 3 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers purpose and parameters adequately, but could be more precise about ordering (e.g., 'sorted by date descending') and clarify that 'recent' may depend on user's activity uploads. Overall, it's nearly complete for a list tool with an output schema.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: start is a zero-based offset, limit is capped at 100, and activity_type is optional with concrete examples (running, cycling, etc.). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'List recent Garmin Connect activities,' specifying the action (list) and resource (Garmin Connect activities). It also provides parameter details and example activity types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_garmin_activity or list_garmin_activities_by_date.

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 for listing recent activities with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_garmin_activities_by_date for date ranges, get_garmin_activity for a single activity). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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