Strava Activities

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the required read permissions and support for filtered/paginated listing. This is meaningful but does not delve into rate limits, error behavior, or response details, which is acceptable given the existing annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but the description covers the essential behavior (listing, filtering, pagination, auth). It does not explicitly mention privacy_mode or response_format, but those are fully explained in the schema. Given the availability of rich annotations and schema, the description is well-rounded for a list operation.

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 high (89%), and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for parameters like after/before conversion and pagination limits. The description only vaguely references 'after/before filters' and 'Strava pagination', adding little beyond what the schema already documents. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'authenticated athlete activities', clearly distinguishing it from single-activity retrieval (strava_get_activity) and other list operations (strava_list_routes). It also mentions supported filters, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context on capabilities ('Supports after/before filters and Strava pagination') and the required OAuth scope ('Requires activity:read or activity:read_all'), which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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