get-activity-photos

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses scope requirements (activity:read vs activity:read_all), the possibility of Instagram-sourced photos, and the empty-array behavior. It also explains the size parameter's default behavior, providing thorough transparency.

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. It could be slightly tighter in the output-format section, but every part serves a purpose and is easy to scan.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, parameters, output structure, auth scopes, and edge cases, leaving no critical gaps.

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 already covers both parameters, but the description adds value with size examples and the behavior when size is omitted (returns all sizes). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves photos associated with a specific Strava activity.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-activity-details or get-activity-streams, which handle other types of activity data.

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?

Use cases explicitly state when to use the tool: fetching photos, getting URLs, and accessing metadata. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context makes the appropriate scenario clear. A slight improvement would be explicitly contrasting with other activity-data tools.

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