get_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation and notes that HR/power zones are 'available' rather than guaranteed, but it does not mention behaviors like how missing activity IDs are handled, auth requirements, or response edge cases.

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 single compact sentence with no filler or redundant qualifiers. It front-loads the core action and then enumerates the specific returned data, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description provides the key information needed to invoke it: the singular scope and the kinds of data returned. It omits usage guidance and edge-case behavior, but those are partially inferable from sibling names and the output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage and only defines activity_id as a required integer. The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but the property name and title 'Activity Id' are self-explanatory for a one-parameter getter, so the gap is minor.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one activity') and lists concrete output categories (summary, laps, training effect, HR/power zones). The word 'one' distinguishes it from plural siblings like get_activities and get_recent_activities, though it does not explicitly contrast with compare_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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The singular 'one activity' implies it is for a single activity's detail, but the description does not state to prefer it over get_activities or compare_activities, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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