check-strava-connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'check' and 'show' imply a non-mutating, read-only operation, which is sufficient for a simple status check. It does not explicitly state that no changes are made, but the nature of the action and the lack of parameters make this transparent enough.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and when to use it, and the sibling context shows how it fits into the connection management workflow. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema requires no additional explanation, and the description appropriately does not attempt to document parameters that do not exist.

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 tool checks and shows Strava connection status, using the specific verb 'check' and resource 'connection status'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect-strava and disconnect-strava, which manage the connection, and data-fetching tools that retrieve stats.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about their connection status,' providing clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to differentiate it from connect/disconnect tools.

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