list_activity_streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' restates that without adding value. However, it does disclose behavior beyond the annotations: the exact payload shape (type code, display name, units, description, power fields) and the side effect of include_stats (downloads streams, adds sample counts and start/end/min/max/mean). No permission, rate-limit, or failure-mode detail, but the disclosure is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage directive, then the payload contents, then the flag behavior, then the method pointer. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the redundant 'Read-only' clause is dead weight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so well, listing the fields and the optional stats block. The only omission is the exact format of the stats values and whether the listing is paginated, which is minor for a small enumerating tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's explanation of include_stats largely mirrors the schema text. It does clarify the purpose of the flag in workflow terms (pre-fetch before a stream call), but activity_id gets no added meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('see which data streams one activity has') and immediately distinguishes itself from the two sibling tools it feeds (get_activity_streams, get_activity_intervals). It also enumerates the concrete content of the listing (streams with type code, display name, units, description), so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 explicitly states the ordering constraint: 'Use before get_activity_streams or get_activity_intervals(stream_types=...)'. That tells the agent both when to call this tool and which alternative it precedes, leaving nothing to inference.

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