strava_cache_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Show' aligns with that. The description adds useful context that this checks the local cache rather than making a remote API call, but it does not disclose exactly what the returned coverage/metadata contains or whether any refresh behavior occurs.

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?

A single, focused sentence that immediately states what the tool does with no wasted words. The key concept, local cache status, is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, this description is largely sufficient: an agent knows what it shows and can safely call it. The main gap is that 'coverage and metadata' is somewhat vague, and since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the returned cache information would make it fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('local Strava activity cache coverage and metadata'). It clearly identifies this as the cache-status tool among the sibling tools, which are mostly remote-data or sync operations.

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 the tool is for inspecting local cache state, so an agent can infer when it is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as strava_rate_limit_status or strava_sync_activities, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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