strava_activity_detail

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent understands this is a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds minimal context that the tool targets a single activity and returns 'detailed' data, but does not disclose specifics like whether segment efforts are included by default or how the response is structured. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and scope efficiently, earning every word.

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 and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent: it does not define what 'detailed data' includes, how it differs from strava_activity_summary, or the effect of includeAllEfforts. The required parameter and read-only nature are covered elsewhere, but the return value and selection context are missing.

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 100%, with both 'id' and 'includeAllEfforts' already described meaningfully. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed data for one Strava activity'), clearly indicating this returns information about a single activity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like strava_activity_summary or strava_activity_streams, so differentiation relies on the word 'detailed'.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over its sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions, such as using summary for lightweight data or streams for time-series data. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and generic description.

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