List Activity Laps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned per-lap metrics (distance, time, speed, heart rate, watts, elevation), which matters because no output schema exists; it omits any note on pagination or the activity_id authorization scope.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the return-field enumeration follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers what it does and what comes back, which compensates for the missing output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether an activity with no laps returns an empty list or how errors for invalid IDs surface.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already explains activity_id fully. The description adds no constraints or format details beyond what the schema provides, which is exactly the baseline-3 case.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('laps of an activity'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools such as strava_list_activity_zones, strava_list_activity_comments, and strava_list_activity_kudoers. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use case is implied and fairly self-evident from the name and description (per-lap splits within a single activity), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as strava_get_activity_streams for raw data or strava_get_activity for a summary. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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