Strava Data Inventory

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds crucial context that it does not call Strava APIs or expose user data, which is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent set expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a critical caveat. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers the tool's function and limitations. An output schema exists for return values, so the description need not explain them. It does not describe when to choose this over sibling inventory tools, but the scope is clear.

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 coverage is 0% in the description. The only parameter (response_format) is fully defined in the schema, but the description does not compensate for low coverage by mentioning it or its effect on output. Since the parameter is trivial, the lack of description is a minor gap, but per the rule, low coverage requires compensation.

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 'Inventory' and lists concrete resources (data domains, auth scope requirements, privacy boundary, recommended first calls). It also differentiates by stating it does not call Strava APIs, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform live operations.

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?

Usage is implied: this is an inventory for understanding supported domains and first calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like strava_capabilities or strava_quickstart, nor does it provide exclusions.

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