get_activity_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation returning 'detailed information' with listed data types (splits, HR zones, GPS data). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the data is computed or raw. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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 front-loads the action and lists included data. Every word contributes value—no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, the description should fully explain what 'detailed information' covers. It lists splits, HR zones, and GPS data, but does not mention other potential fields (e.g., calories, pace, elevation). It also fails to clarify if all available data is returned or just a subset, and lacks details on pagination or limits. The tool has many sibling tools, so the description should be more comprehensive to avoid ambiguity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, with 'activityId' described as 'The unique activity identifier (required)'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only specifying it is for 'a specific activity'. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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 retrieves detailed activity information including splits, heart rate zones, and GPS data. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_activity_splits' or 'get_activity_hr_zones', which return specific subsets. The verb 'get' and resource 'activity details' are specific but sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools that return specific parts of activity data (e.g., 'get_activity_splits', 'get_activity_hr_zones'). The description does not provide when/when-not context or mention that this tool returns combined data, which would help the agent choose appropriately.

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