list_my_foods

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the tool lists personal foods, should be called early, and implies it returns macros and serving info. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or assume a complete list, which is a minor gap.

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 coherent paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse. It is well-structured but not maximally concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and result handling (macros and serving scaling). It lacks explicit output format specifications but is complete for decision-making.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies, and the description adds useful context about when to call the tool but no parameter information is needed.

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 lists the user's saved reusable foods ('My Foods in Iridium') and provides concrete examples (homemade shakes, bars, salads), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit instructions to call this FIRST when the user refers to a known food by name, with examples like 'log my blueberry shake' and fallback guidance. Also details how to reuse macros and scale servings, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use this tool.

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