bosch_get_activity_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses 'Live read' (read-only behavior), downsampling (~500 points per ride), and the return fields. This goes beyond schema/annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: opening purpose sentence, return details, dependency instruction, and parameter definition. No redundant information.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, and parameter provenance. It doesn't address error handling or rate limits, but the tool's simplicity and output schema mitigate that.

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 schema only defines activity_id as a string with 0% description coverage. The description's Args section explains it as 'The ride UUID from bosch_get_activities', providing critical context for where to obtain the value.

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 'Get the per-point track for one ride' with specific data types (GPS, speed, elevation, cadence, power). It also references bosch_get_activities for the activity_id, distinguishing it from the list tool.

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 for retrieving detailed track data for a specific ride, and explicitly instructs to get the activity_id from bosch_get_activities. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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