List routes

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the resource scope (only the athlete's own routes) and the auth scope needed for private routes, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, dense sentence covering ownership, endpoint, and scope requirement. It is front-loaded and every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple paginated list endpoint with strong annotations and a complete schema, the description covers the essential context: resource owner and auth scope. It could optionally mention the response format, but the title and purpose make it obvious.

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 100% with both page and per_page documented, including defaults. The tool description offers no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles the semantic burden.

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 it lists routes created by the authenticated athlete, includes the endpoint, and thereby distinguishes itself from sibling tools like strava_get_route. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage when needing the authenticated athlete's routes and notes the read_all scope requirement for private routes, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as strava_get_route or other list tools. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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