Strava Training Context

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds behavioral context by explaining the normalization process and mentioning fallback guidance when activity data is missing. However, it does not detail what the normalization entails or what the fallback guidance contains, so it provides moderate added transparency.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause adds information, and the key verb and resource appear immediately.

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 six optional parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description provides only a high-level purpose and fallback note. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details needed to fully understand and select the tool, leaving significant 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description does not explain any of the six parameters beyond implying a lookback via 'recent'. Params like soreness, injury_flags, and response_format receive no semantic guidance, so the description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 ('Normalize') and resource ('recent Strava activity load into a compact training_context'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling summary and inventory tools. The mention of fallback guidance adds further specificity about its purpose.

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 usage for workout recommendation engines needing normalized training context, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like strava_daily_summary or strava_weekly_summary. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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