list_meal_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the returned records are saved templates for frequent meals; it says nothing about ordering, limits, or whether all templates are returned, though the output schema carries return structure.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is telegraphic, but every word earns its place and nothing is buried.

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-param read tool with an output schema and annotations, the definition is minimally adequate - it tells the agent what the records are and hints at the downstream workflow. It stops short of confirming scope (all templates vs. filtered) or the role it plays alongside save_meal_template.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless listing tool.

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 identifies the resource precisely ('Saved templates for frequent meals'), which lets an agent distinguish it from log_from_template, save_meal_template, and log_meal. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the tool name supplies 'list' and the scope is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(for quick log_from_template)' implies the intended workflow - fetch templates before logging from one - but states no explicit when-to-use condition or alternative to choose instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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