Strava Routes

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

The description discloses that GPS/map geometry is redacted unless raw mode is requested, adding important context beyond the annotations which only indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. It also clarifies scope to the authenticated athlete, providing useful behavioral detail without contradicting the 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 extremely concise: two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and a single key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 presence of a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description covers the key behavioral caveat (redaction) and scope. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema handles parameter details, making this sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 high (89%), and the schema already documents all parameters including privacy_mode, pagination, and explicit_user_intent. The description's mention of 'raw mode' hints at the privacy_mode parameter but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists routes for the authenticated athlete, using a specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like strava_list_activities (activities) and strava_get_route (single route), which target different resources.

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 use when listing routes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as strava_get_route or strava_list_activities, nor does it mention when pagination or raw mode might be needed. Usage is implied, not directly articulated.

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