Strava Privacy Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by emphasizing that secret values are never revealed, and it lists the categories of posture information returned. This adds meaningful behavioral transparency without contradicting 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scopes the result without redundancy. Every element adds value and nothing is wasted.

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?

The tool has an output schema and clear annotations; the description sufficiently enumerates the key aspects returned and the privacy guarantee. It could optionally clarify 'env-presence' or 'local privacy' further, but the provided detail is adequate for a straightforward audit 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 0%, and the description does not mention the response_format parameter. While the parameter's schema has an enum and default that make it self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanatory text, so it adds no additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly enumerates the resource dimensions: local privacy, cache, token-path, GPS redaction, env-presence posture. This distinguishes it from sibling status and data inventory tools by focusing on an audit of privacy-related configuration.

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 as a privacy audit or assessment, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative sibling tools are mentioned. It is not misleading, but guidance is left to inference from the tool name and description.

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