Strava Daily Training Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a 'non-medical' boundary and 'practical' framing, but does not disclose data sources, load calculation methods, or caching behavior. This adds some value beyond annotations but not rich detail.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by a two-word disclaimer. Every word carries meaning, with no redundant filler or boilerplate.

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 moderately complex, but annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure. The description establishes the summary nature and 'recent' scope. Could mention relationship to strava_weekly_summary, but not essential for correct invocation.

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 67%, with days and timezone well-documented. The response_format parameter lacks a description but its enum and default clarify the options. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond 'recent' which maps to days.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and identifies the resource ('recent Strava activities') with a clear scope ('daily training/load summary'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool strava_weekly_summary by specifying 'daily.'

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. 'Read-only and non-medical' are safety/scope disclaimers, not usage directions. The agent must infer daily vs. weekly usage from the tool name alone.

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