Dietary Build Dietary Intake Scenario

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral nuance of 'explicit acute/chronic semantics,' which is useful, but it does not disclose how the scenario is constructed, whether validation occurs, or what the output contains. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity; still, it earns its place as a concise summary of the tool's primary purpose.

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?

This is a complex build tool requiring a nested request with residue_profile, consumption_profile, chemical_identity, and several semantic enum fields. The description provides almost no context about these inputs, their relationships, or how acute/chronic semantics affect the scenario. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed, but the input-side context is severely under-specified for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, 'request', which is a complex object with nested required fields. The description's only parameter-related hint, 'acute/chronic semantics', merely echoes the existing IntakeWindowSemantic enum and does not explain the request structure, required profiles, model_family, scenario_class, or fit_for_purpose. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Build a dietary intake scenario') and highlights a key feature ('explicit acute/chronic semantics'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like dietary_build_bounded_intake_summary or dietary_build_probabilistic_intake_summary, so it is specific but not differentiated.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a residue profile and consumption profile), exclusions, or scenarios where other build tools would be more appropriate. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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