get_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses that the response includes summary data and per-metric time series, and lists representative metrics such as pace, HR, power, and elevation. It does not mention authorization or error behavior, but for a read-only GET-style tool this is reasonable.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence front-loads the purpose and output scope, and the Args line provides the needed parameter context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter getter, the description provides the necessary input provenance and a useful high-level picture of the return value. The absence of an output schema makes the trailing 'etc.' slightly vague, but it does not block an agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema. It fully does: it defines activity_id as 'the Garmin activity ID' and explains where to obtain it (list_activities). This is actionable and complete for the single required parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for a single activity'), and clarifies the content scope: summary plus per-metric time series. This distinguishes it from list_activities and narrower metric-specific siblings like get_activity_splits.

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 clearly frames when to use it: when complete detail for one activity is needed. It also tells the agent exactly where the activity_id comes from ('as returned by list_activities'), providing a concrete prerequisite. It does not explicitly discuss exclusions, but the context is clear.

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