bosch_get_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it's a live read (no cache), lists all returned metrics, and clarifies the absence of heart rate data. However, it does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or error behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a paragraph on behavior, and a bulleted argument list. It is slightly verbose in listing all metrics, but every sentence adds value and the structure is effective.

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 presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description covers parameters, returned data, and key caveats thoroughly. It does not mention error handling or explicitly compare to siblings, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly. It specifies formats (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD'), defaults ('30 days ago', 'today'), and behavior ('most recent first') for all four parameters, adding essential meaning.

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 starts with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('e-bike rides') and specifies it provides per-ride summary metrics. This distinguishes it from siblings like bosch_battery_trends or bosch_get_activity_detail.

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 mentions 'Live read from the Bosch rider-activity API (no cache)' and notes that heart rate is not recorded, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bosch_get_activity_detail) or what contexts are inappropriate.

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