fitbit_get_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 thoroughly discloses default behavior (cache), the effect of live=True (API calls per day), rate limits (150/hour), and how active_minutes is computed. This is highly transparent.

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 purpose statement, usage note, and explicit 'Args' section. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise by combining the usage note and rate limit warning.

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, the description explains the return format (one entry per day with fields) and defines active_minutes, which is sufficient. It covers all needed context for a data retrieval tool with caching.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description manually documents all three parameters: start_date (format and default), end_date (format), and live (boolean, effect). It adds meaning far beyond the bare property names and types.

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 tool gets daily activity summaries (steps, calories, active minutes, distance) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fitbit_get_heart_rate or fitbit_get_sleep by focusing on activity data. The verb 'get' and resource 'activity summaries' are specific.

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 explicitly explains when to use cache vs live, advises running fitbit_sync first, and warns about rate limits for live queries. It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without needing external hints.

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