Strava Routes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the privacy mode behavior regarding GPS/map geometry redaction, which is a key behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. 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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and a key behavioral note. However, it could be slightly expanded to include guidance on pagination or default behavior.

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 complexity (8 parameters, many optional) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a notable behavior (redaction). However, it lacks details on pagination, time filtering, and response format, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 88%, so most parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond highlighting that raw mode affects geometry redaction. This is helpful but does not significantly compensate for the 12% gap.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('authenticated athlete routes'), with a key detail about GPS/map geometry redaction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strava_get_route which retrieves a single route, and strava_list_activities which lists activities.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest sibling tools for other use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context.

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