list_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering, pagination via skip, and filtering behavior, which is useful. However, it does not define what 'recent' means, what fields each returned activity contains, or any limits or quirks of the result.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a clean Args block. Every line adds value and there is no redundant or promotional wording.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description still omits the return shape and the time window of 'recent'. An agent can invoke the tool correctly but may be uncertain about what the response contains without further documentation.

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%, yet the description documents all three parameters clearly: limit as maximum count, start as pagination skip, and activity_type with concrete examples and the 'leave unset for all' behavior. This fully compensates for the sparse 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?

The description clearly states it lists recent Garmin activities in reverse chronological order, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from singular get_activity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_workouts or other list-type siblings.

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 implies usage for browsing recent activities and explains pagination and filtering behavior, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity or list_workouts. No explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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