Dieta.ai

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: config header yields a permanent connection, while passing a token yields a session-only login, and no args returns a link. It does not fully spell out side effects or success/failure return values, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 dense and front-loaded, with no fluff, but the long single sentence with parenthetical clauses and multiple alternatives could be structured into clearer separate instructions. Still, every part adds necessary information.

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 one-parameter auth tool with no output schema, it covers the no-arg return (the link), the token-paste path, and the persistent-config alternative. It doesn't state the response on a token success/failure, but the invocation guidance is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden for the optional `token` parameter. It explains that token is a JWT/access token pasted by the user and how to pass it, compensating well for the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as MCP.AI authentication for IDE agents, with a concrete browser-login + access-token flow and two invocation paths (no args for a link, token for login). This specific verb+resource is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the unrelated calculo_* sibling 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?

It explicitly differentiates the persistent config-header approach ('best... permanent, non-expiring') from the session-only paste/login path, and states exactly when to call with no args versus with { token }. This gives the agent clear selection criteria for both setup and invocation.

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

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by specifying the two main response states: authenticated:true with empty pending[] when all providers are connected, and connect_url plus per-install URLs when credentials are missing. This helps an agent predict what to expect.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only the essential conditional details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no waste.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what information will be returned, what the success condition looks like, and what happens when credentials are missing. The low complexity means no additional guidance is required.

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 description does not need to explain any input semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter burden at all.

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 purpose: returning connection status and URLs. It distinguishes connect from its sibling authenticate by framing it as a status/read operation rather than an action, and the conditional output descriptions reinforce this.

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 makes clear that this is the tool to call when checking connection state or getting URLs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like authenticate, but the context strongly implies connect is for status checking rather than initiating authentication, so usage is clear without being fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'user_diabetes block' context and no behavioral details such as return shape, data source, or authentication requirements.

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 short phrase with no redundancy, which is concise. However, it is under-specified as a noun fragment rather than a full sentence, so brevity comes at the cost of operational clarity.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives the general topic but not what the agent will receive or how it relates to other diabetes-related tools. It is minimally recognizable but not fully complete.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 identifies the resource as 'Configurações/perfil de diabetes do usuário (bloco user_diabetes)', which makes the subject clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the user_diabetes block. However, it lacks an explicit verb or action, so it reads as a label rather than a statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as dietaai_user or dietaai_goals. No alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned.

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

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) cover the safety profile, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the date format and states it's a summary, but doesn't describe what the summary contains, possible errors, or dependencies. Since annotations handle core safety, a 3 is appropriate—it provides some extra context but no deep 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 front-loads the purpose and includes the parameter format. There is zero waste—every word adds value. It's appropriately sized for a simple 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. It adequately states the purpose and parameter format. However, it doesn't clarify what the diary summary includes or how it differs from sibling tools like diaries, which might affect completeness for an agent deciding between tools. Given the low complexity, a 3 is fair.

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 schema only declares 'date' as a string with no description or format. The description explicitly specifies the format YYYY-MM-DD, which is essential information beyond the schema. For a single parameter with 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates, making the parameter actionable.

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 returns a summary (Resumo) of a day's journal, with the date format specified. It identifies the resource (diary) and action (summary), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like dietaai_diary_logs or dietaai_diary_scheme, which could have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating which scenarios call for this tool. The description implies usage for a single day but gives no comparison with related diary tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns historical lines and how dates filter, but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination, limits, or sorting. No contradiction with 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes a concrete example, and mentions key parameters. No redundant words or filler.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, required parameter, and filtering logic. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the tool name and description together provide enough context for a straightforward read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that diaryId is required and explains the conditional behavior of the two date parameters (both must be provided to filter). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it omits date format or inclusivity details.

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 provides historical lines of a diary track (with glucose series as example), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic diary or log tools like dietaai_diary and dietaai_log. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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 specifies that diaryId is mandatory and that start_range_date and end_range_date filter the interval only when both are provided. This tells the agent when to supply parameters but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like dietaai_log or dietaai_diary, nor any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain nuance that it covers user-specific tracks (e.g., glucose), but it does not describe the return shape or behavior beyond that, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the core noun phrase, no wasteful words. It is concise and easily parsed.

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 no-param, read-only metadata tool, the description names the subject but leaves the output structure unspecified. Given no output schema and a vague noun-phrase description, an agent might not know whether it receives an array, object, or field list. More detail about the response would improve completeness.

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 description cannot add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter reconciliation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as definitions of user diary items (tracks), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dietaai_diary by focusing on the scheme rather than the data. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so the action is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings like dietaai_diary or dietaai_diary_logs. The context of a static definition/scheme is implied, but the description does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is disclosed. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return structure (items per meal and daily totals with macro breakdown), which helps the agent anticipate the response format without any contradiction.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, follows with usage rules, and ends with the return format. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to invoke it correctly (single day vs. range with max limit), and what the response contains. Combined with the informative annotations, this is fully complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the semantic purpose of each parameter: 'date' is for a single day, while 'start_date'/'end_date' define a range, and the max 31 days constraint adds meaning that the schema's plain string types lack. This is essential for correct invocation and goes well beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Consulta o log de alimentos do usuário com os macros', clearly stating the action (query) and the resource (user's food log with macros). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on food log and macro details, and the later phrase 'Retorna os itens por refeição e os totais do dia' clarifies the output scope. This 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?

It explicitly states when to use 'date' for a single day versus 'start_date/end_date' for a range, and includes a maximum range of 31 days. This gives clear conditional guidance for parameter selection, which is more detailed than typical descriptions and directly addresses usage alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that goals include custom goals and that this data is meant to be compared against food totals. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence defines the resource and its contents, and the second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that the tool takes no parameters, has no output schema, and is marked as a safe read, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data is available and suggests how to use it with dietaai_foods. It could be slightly more explicit about output granularity or date handling, but the low complexity and strong annotations make this sufficient.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented schema fields, and it does not.

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 identifies the tool's resource—the user's nutritional goals—and enumerates specific goal types (calories, protein, carbs, fat, water, fiber, custom). It distinguishes itself from siblings by suggesting comparison with dietaai_foods. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists', so it stops short of a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 gives concrete guidance: compare this tool's goal data with dietaai_foods totals to assess adherence. This frames the primary use case and differentiates it from sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that OAuth binding is done once in the app, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as rate limits, error handling, or typical response characteristics beyond saying the path follows the provider's docs. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise—two sentences—yet packed with essential information: the tool's purpose, the provider options, and example paths. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides actionable examples. There is no filler or 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 proxy with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics well but leaves the return format implicit ('the path follows the provider's docs'). It does not describe error cases, pagination, or how the response relates to the provider's API. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but could benefit from a note that the response mirrors the provider's API format.

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 schema provides only parameter names and an enum for provider, with zero description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining the 'path' parameter with concrete examples for each provider (e.g., Whoop 'v1/cycle', Strava 'api/v3/athlete'), which adds significant meaning. The 'provider' parameter is self-explanatory via its enum. Although not exhaustive, it provides enough semantic context for correct usage.

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 is an HTTP bridge to the official APIs of wearables (Whoop, Strava, Oura) linked to the account. It provides specific example paths, which clarifies its role as a proxy. While it doesn't use a standard verb like 'get' or 'fetch', the intent is clear and distinct from the more specialized sibling tools like dietaai_libre_data or dietaai_sibionics_data.

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 implicitly suggests usage when needing data from these wearable providers, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the specialized siblings. It mentions that OAuth is already bound, which is a prerequisite, but lacks direct 'use when' or 'prefer if' statements. The context is understandable but not explicitly framed as a decision guide.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds a hint about the body being optional and matching what the app sends after connecting, which provides some context about input, but it doesn't describe return format, errors, or other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise (two sentences), directly states the purpose, and front-loads the key information. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool returns glucose data, the description omits critical details like whether authentication is required, how to obtain data (e.g., filters, time ranges), and what the output looks like. There is no output schema, so the description must explain more, but it only gives a cryptic hint about the body. The description is inadequate for a tool that likely serves as a data integration point.

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 schema has one optional 'body' object with arbitrary properties and 0% coverage in the description. The description adds meaning by indicating the body should match what the app sends after connecting, which helps the agent understand the expected structure. However, this is vague and doesn't provide concrete details on the body's contents, so it partially compensates for the schema's openness.

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 states it returns glucose data from LibreView (Libre), which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like dietai_sibionics_data by naming Libre, but it doesn't specify what kind of glucose data (historical, real-time) or the exact scope.

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 after connecting ('após conectar') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites like authentication, and no exclusions. The connection is implied but not stated clearly.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is fire-and-forget, returns acceptance, and processes asynchronously. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences cover purpose, input method, required combination, and asynchronous behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, required fields, and async return behavior. However, the 'context' parameter is unexplained, and there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling logging tools, leaving the context incomplete.

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 description gives semantic meaning to 'prompt' and 'imageUrl' by explaining they carry text and photo URL respectively, and it clarifies the required combination. However, the 'context' parameter is completely undocumented, and with 0% schema description coverage this is a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Registra') with a clear resource ('uma refeição') and explains the input mechanism (texto e/ou URL de foto). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the same AI pipeline as the app's chat, which is concrete and useful.

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 for logging meals with text/image and states the required combination ('Pelo menos um de prompt ou imageUrl é obrigatório'). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings like dietaai_diary_logs, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for transparency is lower. However, the description adds minimal insight about behavior beyond that, only vaguely referencing an optional body and passthrough without explaining effects or limitations.

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 very brief, which is concise but lacks substance. It avoids verbosity, but the brevity results in under-informativeness. It is not as well-structured as a clear two-sentence summary, so it does not fully achieve a high conciseness score.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only mentions 'gráfico' (chart) without detailing the response format, data fields, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a developer to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 schema shows a single 'body' object but provides no details about its structure or purpose. The description does not compensate, only repeating 'Body opcional' and 'passthrough' without elaborating on what fields are expected or how they influence the response.

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 indicates the tool provides glucose data from Sibionics in chart form, but it lacks specificity about the exact operation (e.g., retrieval, query) and does not differentiate it from other data-related tools. It is somewhat vague, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions an optional body and passthrough, which are not usage instructions. There is no mention of prerequisites, frequency, or context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the key detail that inviteId is sourced from the user's profile rather than the client, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response format or any potential limitations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, and the critical clarifying note about inviteId is placed second.

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 read-only fetch with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral nuance. It could mention what the glucose data represents (e.g., current reading, historical trend), but it is adequate as-is.

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 high. The description clarifies an implicit parameter (inviteId) that might otherwise be confusing to agents, explaining its origin without requiring schema coverage.

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 retrieves glucose data from the Sibionics device. It distinguishes from generic 'dietaai_sibionics_data' but does not explicitly call out that it is narrowly scoped to glucose readings.

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 implies the tool is used when glucose data from Sibionics is needed, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over sibling tools like 'dietaai_sibionics_data' or 'dietaai_libre_data'. The note about inviteId provides internal context but not usage exclusions.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not disclose any additional constraints like authentication requirements or return format nuances, so it fails to enrich the annotation-provided information.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and to the point, efficiently conveying the core subject.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description is too vague: it says 'subscription data' without specifying what fields or type of information is returned (e.g., plan, status, expiry). With no output schema and no parameter information, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide sufficient detail for the agent to know what to expect.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, the description need not explain parameters, and it correctly avoids adding irrelevant detail.

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 identifies the resource (subscription data) and implies a read operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dietaai_user or dietaai_goals. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', making it slightly less action-oriented, but the purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about the returned fields but does not disclose behavior such as whether this is the current authenticated user's profile or whether authorization is required.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return contents by listing the profile fields. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that it refers to the current authenticated user, but for a simple read-only profile tool it is largely sufficient.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as exposing the basic user profile ('Perfil básico do usuário') and enumerates its fields: nome, email, userId, fuso horário, idioma e data de criação. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like dietaai_subscription or dietaai_diabetes, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'gets'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication. It is implied that this is the profile-access tool, but there is no explicit context or exclusion of sibling tools.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: invoke runs an MCP even when it is not installed, does a one-off run without adding the MCP to the toolkit, returns a connect link when credentials are needed, returns a checkout/top-up link when payment is needed, and requires workspace owner/admin for write operations. The description enriches the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with identity and the core flow, and nearly every sentence carries useful guidance. However, it is one dense, wall-of-text paragraph with mixed language ("pontualmente") and heavy inline emphasis, which makes the many action alternatives hard to scan and parse.

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 complex 23-parameter, 14-action facade with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the core flow, one-off invoke semantics, auth/credential/payment behavior, permission requirements, installed flags, the prompt library, and most action outcomes. The main gaps are the resume action and return-shape details for a few actions, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does a lot of compensating work: it maps action values such as search, describe, invoke, install, list_tools, publish_prompt, and explains tool_id, arguments, and prompt-related intent. However, several parameters and enum actions remain unexplained, including resume, limit, immediate, tier_slug, cancel_reason, report_context, conversation, request_name, and request_details, leaving agents under-specified for those paths.

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 identifies the tool as the official mcp.ai marketplace: the in-platform catalog of MCPs/tools and the way to run them. It states the core discovery→describe→invoke flow, distinguishes the prompt-library subdomain from the MCP flow, and makes it clear this is a marketplace orchestrator rather than one of the sibling calculator/authenticate 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use install only to make an MCP permanent, prefer invoke for one-off use, use list_tools to see what is callable now, use subscribe/cancel for billing, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains what to do when invoke returns a connect link or checkout link, including retry behavior.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that conversation data is needed for reproduction, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission, such as whether a ticket is created or whether the report is asynchronous, though the annotations lower the burden.

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 consists of two tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the key usage instruction. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 three-parameter reporting tool with annotations already covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gaps are the unexplained `context` parameter and the absence of any indication of what the response or outcome will be, though no output schema is expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the `conversation` parameter via 'conversation array with recent messages,' leaving the required `message` and optional `context` undefined. The agent must guess at their intended content.

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 opens with the verb 'Report' and explicitly enumerates three targets: 'bug, missing feature, or send feedback'. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from the sibling calculo_* and authentication tools, which serve entirely different functions.

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 establishes a clear context: use when a user reports a problem or wants to provide feedback. It also adds practical guidance to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' It does not name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools overlap with bug reporting, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating call. The description adds little beyond that—it names the output as versions but doesn't specify the format (e.g., semver strings, JSON object) or whether the output is human-readable. Since the annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 of 9 words, front-loading the action ('Show') and the object ('version'). There is zero waste, and it fully conveys the tool's purpose within its scope. This is a model of conciseness.

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, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can confidently invoke it without additional context. The only minor gap is that the return format is unspecified, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on the output structure (e.g., 'returns a plain-text summary') would elevate completeness. Still, the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description is consistent with that—it correctly implies that no input is required.

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 purpose: 'Show the current MCP platform and adapter versions.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all calculation or authentication tools. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'show' returns (e.g., a text summary vs. structured data), but the resource is 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 that this tool is for checking version information, which makes sense in contexts where an agent needs to confirm platform/adapter versions before proceeding. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention whether version information is needed for authentication or compatibility checks. Given the sibling tools are all calculations, the usage context is reasonably clear, but not explicitly delineated.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing what kind of state is returned, including connection status and account bindings, which helps the agent understand the tool's informational scope.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the main action front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited list of return contents. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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, read-only introspection tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling: what information it will receive. No output schema exists, but the description essentially provides a light output contract by enumerating the returned components.

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 is empty with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. Per calibration, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description's output-focused content is more than sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current toolkit state'), then enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This is specific enough to distinguish it from computational siblings like calculo_* and action tools like authenticate or connect.

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 clearly conveys that this is the tool to call when an agent needs an overview or snapshot of the toolkit's current state. It does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or name alternatives such as show_version, but the context is clear enough for routine selection.

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