Strava Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful behavioral note that summary/structured modes protect raw GPS details, going beyond annotation data. However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors such as response format defaults or explicit_user_intent enforcement.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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's complexity (4 parameters, 2 enums) and the presence of a detailed schema and output schema, the description plus structured data collectively cover the essentials. The description could mention use cases or invocation context, but it is not seriously incomplete.

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 75%, meaning most parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of meaning by noting that summary/structured modes protect GPS details, but it does not significantly enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, baseline 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 'Get detailed activity data by id', specifying the verb, resource, and required identifier. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like strava_get_activity_streams, but the resource scope is evident from the name and phrasing.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or when a different tool might be more appropriate, despite having many sibling tools for various activity-related queries.

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