Strava Demo

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavior: the tool returns example or fake payloads, not real data, and serves as a contract preview. This is valuable context not conveyed by annotations alone, though it does not detail any additional behavior like response format or auth requirements.

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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers its purpose, demo nature, and relationship to real APIs. It does not explicitly explain response_format, but the schema provides that information. The description is largely complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description does not mention the response_format parameter, and the schema has 0% description coverage for properties. The parameter's name and enum provide some intrinsic meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving ambiguity about the markdown vs. json options and their implications.

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 for three specific sibling tools (strava_daily_summary, strava_training_context, strava_list_activities), making its purpose distinct from the real API tools. The verb 'Returns' plus explicit resource names provides a precise, unambiguous definition.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to see the contract before calling real Strava APIs. It implicitly positions itself as a pre-call demo tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or outline alternative scenarios. The guidance is useful enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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