Strava Mirror Sync Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: zero API calls, the distinction between header observations, local estimates and unknown pools, and the critical rule that missing headers never mean free calls. This is exactly the operational nuance an agent needs before deciding whether it can safely proceed.

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?

Front-loaded with the return content, followed by the zero-API-call safety point and the usage trigger. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly jargon-heavy but appropriately sized for a status tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (coverage dimensions, queue, task runs, errors, unmapped fields, rate status). Combined with the safety and rate-limit behavior, an agent has everything needed to interpret and use the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description corroborates the no-input design by framing it as a pure status read.

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 names a specific resource (local mirror / sync status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: activity coverage across details/streams/zones, the queue by kind, last run of each periodic task, recent errors, unmapped fields, and rate status. This clearly distinguishes it from the read/write activity, segment, and athlete siblings, none of which expose internal sync state.

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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: check this or strava://mirror/budget before broad remote reads, and notes that 429 cooldown/reset applies to all priorities. That is a clear condition and an alternative resource, though it doesn't spell out when-not-to-call beyond the broad-read caution.

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