get_best_efforts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool analyzes an activity and returns a JSON string with best efforts data, which implies a read-only computational operation. It does not address permissions or potential errors, but the behavioral core is disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, examples, args, and returns are clearly separated. No sentence is wasted; the Strava analogy and duration examples aid comprehension without bloating the text.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what input is required, and what format the output takes. The examples of durations make the expected result concrete, and the output schema handles detailed field documentation.

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 only parameter, activity_id, is already fully described in the input schema ('Activity ID to analyze'). The description repeats this as 'The unique ID of the activity' without adding format, source, or usage detail, so it adds no meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('best efforts/peak performances from an activity'), and clarifies the concept with duration examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_activity_intervals or get_power_curves by focusing on peak performance summaries rather than raw interval/curve data.

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?

It clearly states the use case: finding best performances across durations such as 5-second, 1-minute, and 20-minute efforts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, only drawing an analogy to Strava segments.

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