list_recent_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions return fields but does not disclose if the operation is safe (read-only), requires authentication, has rate limits, or affects state. The lack of behavioral notes leaves agents without critical context for safe invocation.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences that cover core purpose and output. No superfluous text. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not define 'recent' (ordered by date?), default limit, or pagination behavior. With many sibling tools, more context is needed to fully understand the tool's role.

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 100% as both 'limit' and 'start' parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so it neither helps nor harms. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of recent activities' from Garmin Connect, and lists the summary fields returned. It effectively conveys what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like 'get_activities_by_date' or 'count_activities'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to use this listing tool vs. other activity retrieval tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context.

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