get_activity_streams

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns arrays of data for various metrics, which is informative but does not address side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling, or behavior with invalid inputs. The lack of any mention of mutation or state change is a minimal positive, but overall disclosure is poor.

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: two sentences and a list of parameters. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every word adds value. No redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return format (arrays of second-by-second data) and lists all possible stream types. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or pagination (if any). For a tool with two simple parameters, it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters: activity_id as 'The Strava activity ID' and keys as a comma-separated list of stream types with a complete list of available values and default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 it retrieves time-series stream data for an activity and lists the data types. It is specific about what resource (stream data) and action (get). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_activity (summary) or get_activity_laps (lap data), though the detail about second-by-second data implicitly distinguishes it.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for obtaining detailed time-series data but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_activity) would be more appropriate.

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