strava_route_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It states 'Public data, sourced from Strava's own server-rendered route pages,' which adds context about data source and accessibility. However, it doesn't detail behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information. No redundant or verbose content.

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 single-parameter detail endpoint with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned, how to obtain the required path, and the data source. It could mention potential failure modes or response format, but overall it is sufficiently 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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the path parameter's origin, providing a concrete example, and clarifying the expected format. This goes beyond the schema's generic field description.

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 explicitly states the tool returns a single Strava route's detail with a specific list of fields (type, difficulty, distance, elevation gain, estimated time, summary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like strava_routes, which would list multiple routes.

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 tells the user that the path parameter is the relative route path returned by /strava/routes, implying a sequential workflow. It provides clear context on when to use this tool after obtaining a route from strava_routes, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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