get_activity

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

With no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspect: it returns a wide range of activity details. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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 concise: two sentences and a bullet-like argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose followed by parameter details.

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 no output schema, the description lists the returned data types, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for a single-activity fetch.

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 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: activity_id as the numeric Strava ID, and include_all_efforts as a boolean to control segment effort inclusion. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool returns full details for a specific activity, listing the included data types (splits, segment efforts, laps, gear, description, map data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return only specific subsets like laps or comments.

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 implies this tool is for comprehensive retrieval but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools for specific aspects. No direct mention of alternatives or when-not to use.

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