strava_activity_summary

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination limits, caching behavior, or rate-limit implications. It does not contradict the annotation, but also does not go beyond the annotation to enrich transparency.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core functionality without any redundant words or tangential information. It is well-structured and directly to the point.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the summary output contains (e.g., specific metrics like distance, time, count). The purpose is clear, but without an output schema or further detail, an agent may not fully understand the return structure. This is a moderate gap in completeness.

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?

Every parameter has a description that adds meaning beyond the schema types and enums. For example, 'after' explains it is required to avoid accidentally fetching full history, 'maxPages' clarifies the default and purpose, and 'sportTypes' lists example values. This high coverage and semantic detail make parameter usage clear.

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 states the tool summarizes activities by day, week (Monday-start), or month within a bounded date range. This specifies a verb (summarize), a resource (activities), and distinct grouping options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like recent activities or search.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as strava_recent_activities or strava_activity_search. While the aggregation focus is implied, there is no direct contrast or recommendation, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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