Strava Activity

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about privacy modes protecting GPS details, which enhances transparency beyond the annotations. However, the behavioral disclosure is minimal and does not fully leverage the absence of certain annotation details.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or fluff. This structure is ideal for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the primary action, resource identification, and a key behavioral nuance (privacy modes). However, it could be slightly improved by noting the default response format or linking to related tools.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters, resulting in high schema coverage (67% per context, but actually each parameter has a description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a 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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed activity data') and resource ('by id'), effectively distinguishing the tool from siblings like strava_get_activity_streams by hinting at privacy modes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other similar retrieval tools.

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 implies usage when you have an activity ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as strava_get_activity_streams or strava_get_activity_zones. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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