get_activity_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a dictionary with details, but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios (e.g., missing ID). The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand behavioral traits.

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 very concise with two lines and a structured Args/Returns format. However, there is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns line, both stating it retrieves activity details. Still, it is focused and front-loaded, using only necessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks details on error handling, expected return value structure (though output schema may cover that), and any prerequisites. It is minimally complete but could be more helpful.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the parameter 'activity_id' as 'ID of the activity to retrieve', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and required flag. This semantic addition effectively helps the agent understand what to provide.

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 information for a specific activity. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like get_activities (which returns lists) and get_activity_description (which returns only the description). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, leaving some ambiguity about what 'detailed' means compared to other get tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activities or get_activity_description. It does not specify that this tool is for fetching a single activity's full details as opposed to other partial or list-oriented tools, which would help an AI agent choose appropriately.

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