streaks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: units (days vs weeks), the 'best' value, and the training streak definition ('with a workout'). However, it does not explain edge behavior such as how a current streak is calculated, timezone effects, or whether the data is read-only.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no filler or repeated information. The core values are front-loaded and every phrase adds meaning.

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 zero-parameter, simple lookup tool, the description is nearly complete: it names both streak types and their units. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return shape or how 'best' is determined would have been helpful, but not much is missing for an agent to call this 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already makes that explicit with 100% coverage. With no inputs to document, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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: current food-logging streak in days plus best, and training streak in weeks with a workout. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the meaning is unmistakable. It also differentiates between two distinct streak types, which helps an agent understand what data is involved.

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 given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as prs, weekly_volume, or exercise_history. The description only states what the tool reports, not under what circumstances an agent should choose it over alternatives.

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