get-activity-photos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: authentication requirements ('Requires activity:read scope'), data sources ('Photos may come from Strava uploads or linked Instagram posts'), and edge-case behavior ('Returns empty array if activity has no photos'). It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but covers essential operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use Cases, Parameters, Output Format, Notes) and front-loads the core purpose. Some sentences in the Output Format section could be more concise, but overall it's efficient and organized, with each section adding meaningful information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, output format, authentication, data sources, and edge cases. The 'Output Format' section effectively substitutes for a missing output schema by detailing what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the 'size' parameter returns 'all available sizes' if unspecified, but this is implied by the schema's optional nature. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('photos associated with a specific Strava activity'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-activity-details' or 'get-activity-streams' by focusing specifically on photos, not general activity data or performance metrics.

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 'Use Cases' section provides clear context for when to use this tool (fetching photos, getting URLs, accessing metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as when needing general activity data instead of photos.

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