get_activity_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior by stating it returns a dictionary with activity id, name, and description. The read-only nature is implied by 'get', and no side effects are mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. No redundant information, and the structure is clear.

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?

The description covers basic functionality but is somewhat ambiguous: the phrase 'check for existing coaching feedback' may mislead if the description field is not coaching feedback. It lacks clarifications about edge cases (e.g., missing description) and does not contrast with sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a single parameter, the description only says 'ID of the activity', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to clarify the ID format, source, or constraints, making it insufficient.

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', the resource 'activity's description', and the purpose 'to check for existing coaching feedback'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_activity_by_id and get_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?

The description implies when to use (checking coaching feedback) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention get_activity_by_id for full details or add_coaching_feedback for writing feedback.

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