strava_recent_activities

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds modest context by specifying the activities belong to the authenticated athlete, but it does not describe response format, ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 key action and resource efficiently, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 read-only listing tool with fully documented optional parameters and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It identifies the actor ('authenticated athlete') and scope ('recent activities'). The only notable omission is guidance for choosing this over sibling tools, but that is a usage-guideline concern rather than a core invocation gap.

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%, so every parameter (page, after, before, perPage) already has meaningful documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema carries the full burden.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'authenticated athlete's recent Strava activities,' making the tool's basic function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like strava_activity_search or strava_activity_summary, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as strava_activity_search or strava_export_activities. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering intent, or why one would choose 'recent activities' over the search or export tools.

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