calc_tdee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., formulas used, rounding, or that no data is stored). It is adequate but unremarkable.

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 clear sentence with no waste. It is efficient, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing the key outputs).

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 the absence of an output schema, the description fails to indicate the return format. It also does not mention optional parameters like bodyFatPct. With 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions, it leaves significant information gaps for an AI agent.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (gender, weight, height, age, activity, goal, bodyFatPct). The phrase 'from client stats' is too vague to convey meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the outputs (BMR, TDEE, recommended daily calories) and input source ('from client stats'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like calc_1rm (one-rep max) and calc_macros (macros).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given there are sibling calculation tools (calc_1rm, calc_macros), explicit usage context is missing.

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