get_nutrition_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns current calorie goals and consumption, which is useful, but it does not state whether this is a read-only snapshot, how 'current' is determined, or what happens if nutrition data is unavailable.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the opening phrase 'Nutrition status:' is somewhat redundant with the tool name. The rest is efficient and contains no 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?

For a no-parameter read-only status tool, the description adequately covers the core return content. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it could add a bit more context about temporal scope or what 'consumption' refers to. Overall it is sufficient for a simple status query.

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 is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies because there is no parameter complexity for the description to clarify.

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 resource (nutrition status) and the specific content returned (current calorie goals and consumption). It does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling get_nutrition_log, but 'status' versus 'log' and the mention of goals/consumption provides enough differentiation for most agents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings such as get_nutrition_log, get_daily_summary, or get_daily_hydration. The description gives no context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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