get-activity-details

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. It simply says 'Returns detailed metrics,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether authentication is required, what happens if the activity does not exist, or any error conditions. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the tool name alone suggests.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently lists the key output metrics. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 tool has a simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), and the description lists what is returned. However, it does not specify the output structure (e.g., nested objects, units) or handling of not-found activities. For a tool of this complexity, it is minimally adequate but could benefit from additional context about output format and error scenarios.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (activityId) with a clear description: 'The unique identifier of the activity to fetch details for.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter information, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('detailed metrics for an activity'), and enumerates the specific metric types (distance, time, elevation, pace, heart rate, cadence, power, effort scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-activity-streams (raw data) and get-activity-laps (lap-level data).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest any related tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and the fact that it returns metrics for a single activity.

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