get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'get' by explaining the returned fields and the event_type behavior, including that the field is omitted for old activities. It does not cover errors, permissions, or rate limits, but for a read-only single-resource tool it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then adding return details and the argument definition. There is slight redundancy between 'Get detailed information' and 'Returns a comprehensive summary,' but no filler or unnecessary content.

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 simple single-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. It covers the core return fields and a notable edge case (old activities lacking event_type). Explicit guidance on when to use this over sibling activity tools would make it complete.

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 compensates by explicitly documenting activity_id as 'ID of the activity to retrieve.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title, though it could clarify accepted ID formats or whether integer/string forms are interchangeable.

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 opens with 'Get detailed information for a single activity,' naming a specific verb, resource, and singular scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like get_activities and activity-specific tools like get_activity_splits.

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 phrase 'single activity' implies use when you have an activity_id and need one activity's details, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives like get_activities or get_activity_splits. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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