food_day

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

With no annotations provided, the description does most of the work by disclosing what is included in the day summary, including streaks and workouts. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, or what happens when no data exists for the day, so some behavioral ambiguity remains.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core subject and then lists the returned content in a scannable colon-separated list. Every phrase adds value and no unnecessary information is included.

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-style summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the scope well: date default, date format, and a thorough list of expected outputs. It would be more complete with an explicit 'returns' statement and empty-day behavior, but it is largely sufficient.

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 provides no description for the single optional date parameter, so the description's clarification of 'default today, YYYY-MM-DD' adds meaningful meaning. This is the key semantic information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 identifies the resource as a single day's food summary and enumerates the returned content areas: items by meal, totals, goals, remaining amounts, streaks, uncounted items, and workouts. It is clear enough to be distinguished from sibling log/edit tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling alternative.

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 when to use the tool—to view or summarize food data for a day, defaulting to today—and specifies the date format YYYY-MM-DD. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like food_card, log_food, or streaks, so the usage guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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