Get Authenticated Athlete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful detail about auth scope depending on requested fields, but nothing else about behavior, edge cases, or the effect of privacy_mode=raw. This is a modest addition beyond annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a key requirement. No wasted words, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks critical context: it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs siblings, the meaning of 'requested fields' in relation to scope, or the importance of explicit_user_intent for raw mode. The tool's behavior is not fully specified, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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%, and the description adds no meaningful parameter details. The phrase 'depending on requested fields' is vague and does not clarify the role of privacy_mode, response_format, or explicit_user_intent beyond what the schema already provides. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 gets the authenticated athlete profile with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like strava_profile_get or strava_get_athlete_stats, which may have similar purposes.

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 mentions a prerequisite (read/profile scope) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no indication of exclusions or when to use a different tool, so the agent lacks sufficient context for tool selection.

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