get_activity_kudoers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or that results are paginated. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 very concise with one sentence plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parameter list could be more integrated, but overall efficient.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks context on pagination behavior, error handling, or usage scenarios. For a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more compensatory detail.

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 0%. The description lists parameters but only repeats schema information (type and default). It adds no semantic meaning such as what a kudo is or that activity_id must be an existing activity.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'list of athletes who gave kudos on an activity.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_activity_comments or get_activity_laps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or any contextual comparison with sibling tools.

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