Strava Connection Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by stating 'without calling Strava or exposing secrets', which clarifies network behavior and data privacy. This exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Check') and compresses a long list of status items into a compact phrase. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

As a read-only status tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the scope. It misses parameter semantics and explicit usage differentiation, but the core behavior is clear. Given the presence of an output schema and strong annotations, it is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional MCP client readiness' which obliquely relates to the 'client' parameter, but it does not explain the effect of 'client' or 'response_format' choices. The enum values are listed in the schema, but their semantics are not clarified.

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 opens with 'Check local Strava config, token file, Node version, privacy mode, cache readiness and optional MCP client readiness', providing a specific verb and a clear list of resources. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like strava_cache_status or strava_privacy_audit, but the scope is clearly a broader status check.

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 is a diagnostic tool for local setup, but it does not state when to prefer it over more specific sibling tools like strava_cache_status or strava_privacy_audit. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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