mfp_get_diary

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description goes further by detailing the return structure (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Snacks with nutrition breakdown), inclusion of daily totals/goals, and support for 'markdown' or 'json' output. It also notes the default date behavior, adding value 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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections and front-loads the main purpose. However, there is some redundancy: the first paragraph already lists meals/nutrition and daily totals, and the Returns section repeats a summary. It remains reasonably concise, but a tighter wording would earn a 5.

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 report tool, the description covers the essential return content, parameters, and output options. It does not discuss edge cases like empty diaries or errors, but given the simple nature and rich annotations, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 schema's measured coverage is 0% at the top level (the 'params' wrapper lacks a description), but the tool description explicitly documents both parameters: date (with format and default) and response_format (with allowed values). This fully compensates for the schema gap and gives agents actionable meaning for invocation.

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 'Get the food diary for a specific date including all meals and their nutritional information.' This clearly identifies the verb (get), the resource (food diary), and the scope (date, meals, nutrition). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mfp_get_measurements or mfp_get_water by focusing specifically on diary contents.

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 clear context by stating the tool retrieves a diary for a given date and defaults to today if no date is given. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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