List Activity Zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is time-in-zone rather than raw samples, which is useful, but it says nothing about units (seconds vs formatted), whether zones come from athlete settings, or what happens for activities lacking power data.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying that the payload is time-in-zone. Zero filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to anticipate the return shape ('time spent in each zone'). Minor gaps remain around units and zone source, but nothing blocking.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single required integer parameter already documented as 'The activity ID', the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') and resource ('heart rate and power zone distribution for an activity'), and the second sentence clarifies the output shape. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling strava_get_athlete_zones (athlete-level zone configuration) or from strava_get_activity_streams, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for an activity' and the required activity_id, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over strava_get_athlete_zones (zone definitions) or strava_get_activity_streams (raw samples). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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