get_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal operational context. While it notes filters are 'optional,' it fails to mention critical list-operation behaviors such as pagination, result limits, rate limiting, or the structure/format of returned activities.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, presenting the core purpose in the first sentence followed by an Args section detailing parameters. The structure is efficient with minimal redundancy, though the docstring-style Args format is slightly more verbose than inline prose.

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 description is minimally viable for a listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema. It adequately covers parameter semantics but lacks essential completeness given the absence of an output schema—it should describe the return value structure (e.g., 'returns a list of activity objects') and pagination behavior expected for list endpoints.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting all three parameters with useful semantics: it specifies date formats (YYYY-MM-DD) and inclusivity for date ranges, and provides concrete examples ('Ride', 'Run', 'Swim') for the sport_type filter, adding significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 'List activities' with optional filters, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_activity_detail' (which likely retrieves a single activity versus listing multiple), leaving the distinction to be inferred from the tool names alone.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activity_detail' or other sibling tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or scenarios recommending this tool over others for specific use cases.

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