Get Athlete Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that stats are public-visible and aggregate, which is useful, but it does not mention privacy_mode handling, rate limits, or caching, so it adds limited behavioral detail 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?

A single sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only stats tool, the description covers the core action and scope, and an output schema likely documents return values. However, it omits guidance on privacy mode implications and when to use this vs. similar tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 schema documents privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent with descriptions, but response_format has no description. The tool description itself does not mention any parameters, so it does not fill that gap. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 it retrieves public-visible aggregate Strava stats for the authenticated athlete, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like strava_get_athlete (profile) and strava_list_activities (raw list), though it doesn't enumerate which specific stats are included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description doesn't mention use cases, exclusions, or relations to other Strava tools such as strava_daily_summary or strava_get_athlete.

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