list_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns up to 30 activities by default (implying pagination and limits) and specifies it's for the authenticated athlete (implying auth needs). However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error conditions, or what 'activities' entail (e.g., types, fields). The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and key constraint (default limit). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (list operation with 4 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the core action and default behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or full usage context. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for a tool without structured support.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying pagination via 'Returns up to 30 activities by default,' which aligns with 'per_page' default but doesn't provide additional meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 ('List') and resource ('the authenticated athlete's activities'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_activity' (singular) and 'explore_segments' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is not tautological and provides meaningful context beyond the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with siblings like 'get_athlete_stats' for aggregated data, or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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