Strava Weekly Training Review

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'non-medical', which is a useful behavioral note for a health-related tool. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key deliverables. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks information on how data is aggregated, what constitutes 'bottlenecks', and any usage constraints beyond 'non-medical'. For a tool with four parameters and a weekly summary output, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 75%, with the 'response_format' parameter having an enum but no description in the schema (though it's mostly clear). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. 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 verb 'build' and the resource 'weekly Strava scorecard', listing specific components (volume, intensity, sport mix, bottlenecks, next-week actions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like strava_daily_summary and strava_training_context by focusing on a weekly review.

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 mentions 'Read-only and non-medical' which hints at safe usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No contrast with siblings like strava_daily_summary or strava_training_context is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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