get_food_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation and enumerates the returned nutritional fields. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, error handling for invalid dates, or data availability conditions.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, ~25 words) and immediately front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It mentions both daily totals and individual entries. A small gap is the lack of mention about data source prerequisites (e.g., Fitbit connection) which is implied.

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 100% (the date parameter is documented). The description adds context by listing the nutritional fields returned, which helps understand the parameter's purpose. This meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'comprehensive nutrition data from Fitbit food log', and explicitly states it is for a specific date. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_nutrition_by_date_range by emphasizing the single date focus.

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 implies usage for a specific date but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_nutrition_by_date_range or get_nutrition. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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