strava_export_activities

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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description mentions writing to local files, which is a side effect, but it does not disclose potential overwriting behavior, permissions, or any failure modes. It adds only file type details beyond the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It avoids redundancy and includes essential details (bounded, local, file types) without extra fluff.

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 an export utility, the description gives enough context: it specifies the input scope (bounded history) and output format (local raw JSON, compact JSON, CSV). It does not mention how results are returned (e.g., file path), but that may be outside the tool's responsibility. Overall, it is complete for the stated purpose.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema (e.g., 'after' as Unix timestamp lower bound). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Export') and the resource ('bounded activity history') with destination file types. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like strava_recent_activities or strava_activity_search.

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 a use case (exporting a bounded history to local files) but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like strava_sync_activities or strava_activity_search. No direct comparison or conditional guidance is provided.

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