Meal Plan List Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool lists entries and shows specific fields, implying a read-only operation without explicit confirmation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations such as pagination, but for a simple list tool this is minimally sufficient. The description is not misleading, but lacks deeper behavioral context like whether entries are filtered by date range or if the list is exhaustive.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all meal plan entries sorted by date'). The second sentence adds relevant detail about what is shown without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does and what information is displayed. However, it lacks any mention of limitations or when to use this tool instead of meal_plan_summary, which might be relevant for full context. The tool is simple enough that this gap is minor, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. Per the rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything further. The description's mention of sorting and displayed fields is relevant to output, not parameters.

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 states a specific action ('List all meal plan entries') and resource ('meal plan entries'), and adds sorting by date and the fields shown (dates, recipe names, notes). This clearly distinguishes it from other list tools and meal_plan_summary, which likely aggregates rather than lists entries. The verb 'list' and explicit resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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. Siblings like meal_plan_summary, meal_plan_shopping, and meal_plan_add are present, but the description does not mention them or explain when a user should prefer this list tool over a summary or other meal-plan tools. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'list'.

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