Strava Activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the required permission scopes and that Strava pagination is supported, but it omits other behavioral details such as privacy-mode handling, rate limits, or pagination caps. No contradiction exists between description and 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 three short sentences, each earning its place: it states the operation, the key filtering/pagination capabilities, and the required authorization. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 rich parameter schema, the output schema, and the safe read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete for invoking the tool correctly. It captures the core purpose, filtering, pagination, and auth requirements. It does not surface the privacy_mode, response_format, or all_pages options at a high level, but those are well documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 at 89%, so the schema already explains most parameters in detail. The description's mention of after/before filters and pagination loosely maps to those parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. With such high coverage, the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List authenticated athlete activities.' It also names key capabilities (after/before filters, Strava pagination), making the tool's purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools like strava_list_routes or strava_get_activity, so the full rubric's sibling-differentiation bar isn't met.

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 useful context: it lists authenticated athlete activities and mentions the required OAuth scopes (activity:read or activity:read_all). However, it doesn't say when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, and there are many sibling tools in the same domain.

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