Get my Strava profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read operation (zero parameters, 'return...profile'), and this is reasonably clear from 'Return' and zero required parameters. However, it doesn't detail aspects like whether profile includes full settings, pagination, or any edge cases in the returned data.

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?

One sentence, zero waste. It includes the essential verb, resource, and scope (authenticated athlete). Perfectly concise for the complexity involved.

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 is simple (zero params, no output schema, no annotations), but there's still room for more context about what 'profile and settings' includes—such as whether it covers privacy settings, units, or other configuration. No output schema exists, so describing return content would add value. Still, for a zero-param read of one's own profile, it's reasonably adequate.

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?

This tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 per the rubric. The description appropriately explains what will be returned (profile and settings), which is the complete need for parameter semantics on a zero-param call.

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 'Return the authenticated athlete's Strava profile and settings' clearly states the verb (return) and resource (athlete profile and settings). It's specific about what data is returned, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_activity. However, the resource 'profile and settings' is distinct enough from activity-level tools.

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 this is for retrieving the authenticated user's own profile. Sibling tools like get_activity and list_my_activities are clearly activity-focused, so an agent could reasonably infer when to use this tool. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance.

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