list_activities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination and return fields, and implies authentication via 'authenticated athlete'. However, it does not mention default ordering, rate limits, or error behavior, which are relevant for a list endpoint.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by return summary. Every word contributes value, with 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the returned fields (name, type, distance, time, elevation) and mentions pagination. It does not explain default ordering or pagination defaults, but these are minor for a simple list tool. Overall, it provides sufficient context for the tool's basic use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (page, after, before, per_page). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the general mention of pagination, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 lists recent activities for the authenticated athlete, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_activity by focusing on listing multiple activities with summary data rather than a single activity.

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 listing activities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity or get_activity_stats. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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