plan_week

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states that it 'creates' a plan, but does not disclose side effects, whether it modifies stored data, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential risks. The use of 'household profile' hints at an input dependency, but this is minimal context and does not clarify what actually happens when invoked.

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 is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place: 'Create' is the verb, 'starter weekly meal plan' is the deliverable, and 'using the household profile' adds essential context. 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps. An agent might understand the tool's purpose but would not know how to configure 'dinner_count' or when to call it relative to shopping workflows. This is adequate for a minimal viable description but not 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 input schema has one optional parameter 'dinner_count' with a default of 5, but the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully fails to explain the meaning or usage of the parameter. The agent is left to guess what 'dinner_count' represents in the context of a weekly meal plan.

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 function: 'Create a starter weekly meal plan using the household profile.' It names a specific verb ('create'), a concrete resource ('weekly meal plan'), and a data source ('household profile'). The sibling tools are all shopping/Kroger-related, so this is clearly distinct in purpose.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. The existence of sibling shopping tools implies a different use case, but the description itself offers no explicit usage context or decision criteria.

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