analyze_fit_activity

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by promising bounded summaries and explicitly ruling out raw sample return, preventing an agent from expecting full record data. It does not mention authentication or latency, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and scope, then lists the output categories and the one critical exclusion. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 10 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves substantial gaps: parameter semantics are missing, and return values are only summarized at a high level rather than structurally explained. Scope and output categories are covered, but too much is left for the agent to infer.

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 does not explain any of the 10 parameters. The metric list hints at related parameters (e.g., climbs, stops, cadence, HR), but the agent gets no guidance on what targetCadenceMin/Max, stopSpeedMetersPerSecond, stopBoundaryIgnoreSeconds, or maxReturnedClimbs mean or how to choose them.

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?

Description names a specific verb+resource: download and analyze the FIT file for a completed COROS activity. It distinguishes its output (bounded summaries of HR/cadence/speed/power/temperature/stops/climbs/aerobic decoupling/finish quality) from siblings like get_activity_detail by explicitly stating raw samples are not returned.

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 scope is clearly limited to completed COROS activities and the analysis returns summarized record-level metrics, giving the agent clear context for when to call it. It does not, however, name alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving sibling disambiguation to the agent.

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