export-route-gpx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key side effect: 'saves it to a pre-configured local directory,' which is important for an agent to know. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, file naming, or whether the operation overwrites existing files. This is adequate but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase earns its place: specifies the export format, the resource, and the destination.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it exports, in what format, and where it saves. It lacks information about return values (e.g., success message) and potential failure modes, but given the simple nature of the tool and the rich schema, the description is sufficiently complete. A score of 4 reflects that it could add a note about output or prerequisites but is otherwise 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter semantics: routeId is described as 'The ID of the Strava route to export.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it reinforces the meaning by referring to 'a specific Strava route.' Per calibration, with schema coverage at 100%, a 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 tool's function: 'Exports a specific Strava route in GPX format and saves it to a pre-configured local directory.' It specifies the verb (exports), resource (specific Strava route), output format (GPX), and side effect (saving to a local directory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export-route-tcx (different format) and get-route (retrieval without file output).

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 when to use this tool (when a GPX export of a route is needed) but does not explicitly provide usage exclusions or name alternatives. Since sibling tools exist (e.g., export-route-tcx for TCX format), the description could have stated 'use this for GPX, export-route-tcx for TCX' to improve guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative comparison.

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