Get Strava Activities By Type

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining pagination (nextPage, scanning up to limit), ordering (newest first), and date range constraints (after/before as Unix seconds). It does not contradict annotations. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or authentication, but acceptable for a read-only paginated tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and immediately provides key details. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: type filter, pagination flow, and optional date range. Sibling tools exist but the description is self-contained. It could mention that the output includes activity summaries, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning beyond the schema: clarifies that 'limit' is a scan limit, explains pagination with 'nextPage', and reiterates the date range parameters' unit (Unix seconds). The 'page' parameter is described as 1-based. This adds useful context.

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 returns a bounded page of activities of a supported type, newest first. It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('activities'), and key constraints (type filter, pagination, ordering). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getActivities (likely all types) and getRecentRuns (specific type implied).

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 explains when to use the tool: to retrieve activities of a specific type with pagination and optional date range. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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