get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that values come from a stored Activity snapshot (so Rider settings may reflect the time of recording), that it reports which data exist, and that every omitted value gets an explanatory note. It does not state read-only nature, error behavior for a malformed id, or cost/latency, but the omission handling is real, non-obvious 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a dense but informative metric inventory, then the less obvious Rider-settings and omitted-value notes. The single long sentence is heavily comma-listed but nearly every item carries selection value; only mild tightening is possible.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey return content, and it does so thoroughly, including snapshot semantics and missing-data notes. It falls short only on sibling differentiation and on any statement about safety, failure modes, or size of the response for an activity with many laps and segments.

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 coverage is 100% and the single activity_id parameter is documented with a pattern and a pointer to list_activities, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that the id identifies 'one Activity' whose snapshot is read, which is marginal beyond the 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?

States a specific resource ('One Activity's summary') and enumerates exactly what is returned: times, distance, elevation, power/HR/cadence metrics, zone times, laps, segment results, plus the Rider settings snapshot. This is far more concrete than the bare name, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_activity_intervals, get_window_stats, or get_activity_streams.

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 word 'summary' plus the enumeration of aggregate metrics implies this is the whole-activity overview rather than the interval or stream views, but the agent is left to infer that. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance naming the alternatives.

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