mess_get_capacities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., grouping by category and return format), but does not detail authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which are relevant given the auth_key and session parameters.

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 the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the Args section could be more integrated into the main text for better flow.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and return format, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or sibling tool differentiation, which would enhance contextual understanding.

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 mentions 'meal (required)' and 'on (YYYY-MM-DD, optional)', adding basic semantics, but omits details on auth_key and session parameters, their purposes, or default behaviors. The schema provides rich descriptions for all parameters, but the description does not fully bridge the coverage 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get mess capacities'), resource ('for a meal on a date'), and scope ('grouped by category'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mess_get_menus or mess_get_registrations. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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 like mess_get_registrations or mess_get_extras_in_range. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic function.

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