query_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that detail=true attaches structure and fine intervals and that raw FIT files and local paths are not returned. However, it does not state read-only behavior, permissions, pagination, ordering, or how limits and date ranges affect results.

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 a compact single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the detail behavior appended. It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that could be filled without bloating it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained in detail. Still, for a six-parameter query tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is missing too much usage and parameter context to be considered complete.

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%, and the description only explains the detail parameter's effect. It says nothing about days, limit, sport, start_date, or end_date, leaving most of the six parameters undocumented beyond their raw schema types and constraints.

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 and resource: query canonical activities. It also clarifies that detail=true adds structure and fine intervals, making the tool's scope recognizable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_training_load or get_recovery_status, but the activity-querying purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it is the activity-retrieval tool, but an agent must infer all usage context.

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