strava_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation and the description lists what is verified, but it omits return format, failure behavior, permission requirements, and confirmation that no state is changed.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of redundant wording. It could be slightly better structured by stating the action first and the readiness items second, but it contains no wasted text.

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?

The tool is low complexity, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should clarify what a successful or failed status response looks like. It also does not explain when an agent should call this versus the other Strava tools.

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 parameter semantics are not a concern. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to document or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and the resources being verified: Cotlet.dev account, credits, and Strava connection. It distinguishes itself from the interaction-oriented siblings only implicitly, since it never names them as alternatives.

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 word 'ready' implies a preflight check before using other Strava tools, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling it replaces.

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