Strava Demo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the payloads are 'realistic example' rather than real data, which is an important behavioral trait. No contradiction with annotations. It could mention that no authentication is needed, but the readOnlyHint covers that implicitly.

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 that conveys all essential information without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 demo tool returning example payloads, the description is complete. It specifies which tools' payloads are returned and the purpose of showing the contract. No output schema is needed because the tool itself shows the structure.

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% for the one parameter (response_format). The description does not mention this parameter or its effect (markdown vs json output). The schema provides enum and default, but the description fails to add meaning or explain usage, which is required given low schema coverage.

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 that the tool returns realistic example payloads of three specific Strava API tools (strava_daily_summary, strava_training_context, strava_list_activities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that call real APIs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage before calling real Strava APIs by saying 'so agents see the contract before calling real Strava APIs.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude use cases or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools suggests this is for exploration and testing first. It provides clear context for when to use.

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