List Activity Comments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: a cache refresh fetches the entire upstream list across potentially many API pages regardless of per_page, signaling latency/cost. Auth requirements and return shape are not mentioned, keeping it from a 5.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the performance caveat following. No filler, though the second sentence could be slightly more explicit that it applies to refresh operations triggered by the call.

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 simple read-only paginated list with full schema coverage and a disclosed refresh-cost behavior, the description is close to complete. Only the absence of auth/return-value framing leaves a minor gap.

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%, so page, per_page, and activity_id are already documented at the field level. The description reinforces the page/per_page-vs-refresh relationship but adds little beyond what the page parameter description already states. 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?

"Page through stored comments" states a specific verb (paging) and resource (comments), clearly distinct from siblings like strava_list_activity_kudoers or strava_list_activity_laps. It does not explicitly note that comments are scoped to an activity_id, but the name and schema make that unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this versus other activity sub-resource listings, nor any prerequisites (auth, activity existence). Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name.

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