analyze_completed_activity

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

Annotations already carry read-only/non-destructive context, so the description credits by adding a concrete behavioral detail: COROS may reject detailed strength data and supplying the date enables a summary fallback. This is genuinely useful beyond the annotations and not contradicted by them.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose comes first, supported domains second, and the fallback behavior last. There is no fluff, no repetition of annotations, and no redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description only vaguely says the result is a 'compact coach-ready analysis,' which is a bare minimum for understanding return value shape. It does cover the fallback bound, but it lacks edge-case guidance such as what happens for invalid or incomplete activity data, and it never helps differentiate this from closely related analytic siblings.

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 schema only documents the date property, so the description carries most of the load for sportType and activityId meaning. It makes sportType more meaningful by naming endurance, strength, walking, hiking, mobility, and active recovery, and it explains why the date matters. It does not specify valid sportType integer values or clarify activityId semantics beyond the obvious activity resource.

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: 'Return a compact coach-ready analysis of any completed activity.' This clearly separates it from raw data retrieval tools like get_activity_detail or list_activities. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other analysis siblings such as analyze_fit_activity or analyze_workout_execution.

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 gives useful context about supported sports and the date-based fallback for COROS rejecting detailed strength data. It never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling analysis tools, nor does it name alternatives or exclusion cases. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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