get_repeated_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added value is domain semantics: these are foods that log themselves on chosen days, which helps interpretation. It says nothing about ordering, whether inactive items are included, or result shape, though an output schema exists to carry the latter.

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 twelve-word sentence with no filler, and the defining concept is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than an action statement, which slightly weakens orientation for an agent scanning for what the call does, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations and an output schema, the remaining burden on the description is small and the definition covers the core concept. What is missing is the relationship to the add/delete repeat-item siblings and any note about what the returned items represent operationally. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool that anchors a small CRUD family.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No argument syntax is needed and none is missing.

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 defines the resource precisely by explaining the domain concept: items ('foods') configured to auto-log themselves on selected weekdays. That lets an agent understand what a 'repeated item' is, which the name alone does not convey. It stops short of a 5 because there is no verb (list/retrieve) and no differentiation from add_repeat_item or delete_repeat_item.

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 on when to call this versus the related mutation siblings (add_repeat_item, delete_repeat_item), nor any stated precondition such as requiring an authenticated profile. The agent must infer from the name that this is the read-side counterpart. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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