List activities

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns completed activities, newest first, with pace/GAP, heart rate, training load, and totals per type. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two dense, efficient sentences: action, scope, ordering, key output fields, defaults, and the relevant alternative. Every clause earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 full schema parameter coverage, a true output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential decision factors: what is returned, how it is ordered, the default window, and when to use get_activity instead. No critical calling detail is missing.

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 schema documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of a date range and default of 30 days reinforces the oldest/newest parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb and resource: it lists completed activities in a date range, with ordering, key metrics, and per-type totals. It explicitly distinguishes from get_activity but does not differentiate from the sibling search_activities, leaving some sibling ambiguity.

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 gives a clear alternative: 'Use get_activity for details of one activity,' and states the default 30-day window. It does not explain when search_activities should be preferred, so usage guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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