Get Activity Streams

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: automatic downsampling of oversized data, a typical cost of one API request per cache miss, and the caveat that missing rate headers mean unknown accounting rather than free calls.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then cost, then the caching caveat — no padding. The rate-header sentence is dense but earns its place as a caution about misreading absence of headers as zero cost.

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 return-shape responsibility and does state that time-series streams come back downsampled; it does not spell out the per-key array structure, but that is minor for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the keys enum plus the 10-2000 max_points range are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the downsampling relationship with max_points; it adds no format or default nuance beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get high-resolution time-series data for an activity') and enumerates the stream families returned (heart rate, power, cadence, altitude, GPS). It is clearly distinct from strava_get_activity by virtue of the time-series framing, though it never explicitly contrasts with the other *streams siblings (segment/route streams).

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 one concrete precondition — consult strava_sync_status or strava://mirror/budget before calling when rate accounting is uncertain — which is real usage guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over strava_get_activity (summary only) or strava_get_segment_streams / strava_get_route_streams, so an agent must infer the boundaries.

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