get_calories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral nuances such as the timezone-dependent default date (SENSR_TZ or America/Chicago) and default granularity, and notes the return type. However, it does not cover potential error cases, rate limits, or data availability, leaving some opacity for a getter.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, follows with a bulleted parameter list, and ends with a return note. Every sentence provides actionable information without 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 retrieval tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, parameters, defaults, and return. Since an output schema exists, missing detailed return formatting is acceptable. The only minor gap is lack of mention of error conditions or data history limits, but this is not critical for a routine getter.

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 minimal descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter, including type, requiredness, the date format (YYYY-MM-DD), the timezone for the default, and the allowed enum values for granularity (day|week|month|year). This is essential added meaning beyond the raw 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 states it 'Get calorie details for a user', which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sleep, get_scores, and get_activities that target different metrics, so an agent can unambiguously select it for calorie 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description only lists parameters and return type, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without directional context.

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