Strava Data Inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds complementary context that the tool does not call Strava APIs or expose user data, which further clarifies its harmless, meta-nature. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second adding a critical disclaimer. No unnecessary words, front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 simple purpose and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the inventory format), the description covers the needed context: it inventories domains, auth scope, privacy boundaries, and recommendations. No gaps remain for a meta-inventory tool.

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 single parameter 'response_format' is an enum with default 'markdown', self-explanatory from the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the enum values. The parameter is trivial so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool inventories supported Strava data domains, auth scope requirements, privacy boundaries, and recommended first calls. It also explicitly clarifies it does not call Strava APIs or expose user data, distinguishing it from siblings that perform actual API 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?

The description implies the tool is useful for understanding available data and getting started, but does not explicitly specify when to use it versus alternatives like strava_capabilities or strava_onboarding. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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