get_activity_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic retrieval function and rephrases schema defaults (page_size). It omits important details like default ordering, potential empty results, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal value beyond the name and schema.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences and a structured args list. No unnecessary words, and every element serves a purpose. It is well-formatted and front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., valid activity_id), typical usage patterns, and potential error conditions. It is minimally complete.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'The Strava activity ID' for activity_id and clarifying page_size as 'Number of comments per page (default 30).' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies parameter semantics.

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 'Get comments on a specific activity,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_activity' (activity details) and other 'get_activity_*' tools, making the purpose 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 implies usage for retrieving comments on an activity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_activity_kudoers' or other activity sub-resource retrievers. No exclusions or contextual hints are given.

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