Strava Cache Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it concerns a local SQLite cache and how to enable it, which is useful configuration context. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like what status fields are returned or behavior when the cache is disabled, though annotations reduce the burden.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence about enabling is directly relevant to the tool's topic. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only status tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and configuration context. It could mention the meaning of the status output or the effect of response_format, but the schema and annotations fill in some gaps. Given low complexity, it is reasonably 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 schema has one parameter (response_format) with an enum and default, but the description makes no mention of it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter semantics. The schema itself provides the enum, but the description adds no additional meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as 'optional local SQLite cache status,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connection status or privacy audit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 this tool is for checking cache status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other status tools. The mention of enabling with STRAVA_CACHE provides setup context rather than usage guidance, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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