Strava Agent Manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool does not call Strava and does not expose secrets, plus it includes specific guidance content. This is useful and consistent with 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 three short sentences, each providing distinct value: what the tool is, what it contains, and what it deliberately avoids. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional enum parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, contents, and safety guarantees without needing to detail return formats since an output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the 'client' or 'response_format' parameters. The schema itself is self-explanatory through enums and defaults, but because coverage is low, the description should compensate—it does not. The description's mention of Hermes names indirectly relates to the client parameter but never explicitly explains how parameters affect output.

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 identifies the tool as machine-readable guidance for AI agents, specifying its scope (install, runtime, client guidance) and contents (Hermes tool names, anti-gateway-restart guidance). It explicitly states it does not call Strava, which distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that do. This provides a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs machine-readable install/runtime/client guidance, especially Hermes-specific tool names and anti-gateway-restart instructions. The caveat 'Does not call Strava' implies it is not for Strava API operations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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