List activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds ordering ('newest first') and enumerates returned metrics, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits important behavior such as the default limit of 20, the 200 cap, and whether results are silently truncated — details an agent needs to avoid incomplete answers.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the ordering/return-shape information front-loaded before the filter options. The metric enumeration is dense but each item earns its place since no output schema exists. Slightly list-like but appropriately sized.

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 usefully lists the returned fields, which covers the biggest gap. For a five-parameter list tool with 20% schema coverage, however, it should state the default/capped limit and result-window behavior to be fully actionable. Adequate but with a clear missing piece.

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 only 20% (only 'type' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does partially: it clarifies that date range maps to from/to, that category is a 'run category' (distinguishing it from the free-text 'type' substring), which is real added meaning. It says nothing about 'limit' or the date format expected for from/to, leaving a gap on one of five parameters.

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 conveys that this returns a list of activities ordered newest first, including the metric fields returned (pace, HR, load, intensity split, efficiency, RPE) and the available filter dimensions. It is a specific, useful statement of purpose. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_activity, get_trend, or get_best_efforts, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Filter by date range, run category or activity type' suggests the agent should call this to enumerate activities within a window or category. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_activity (single activity) or get_trend (aggregate) over this list tool, and no mention of when not to use it.

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