generate_meal_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal important output details (meal items, daily totals, achievement rates), but it omits any mention of side effects, data persistence, or authorization requirements. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is only partial.

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 that communicates the main purpose, output, and intended audience without any filler. Every phrase carries meaningful information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, but it does mention them briefly. However, with 8 parameters and no guidance on how they interrelate or when to set them, the description is only partially complete. It captures the core scenario but leaves parameter handling unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not describe any of the 8 parameters. It only loosely alludes to goals via 'PRNT' and to duration via 'multi-day', which does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics. For a tool with 5 required numeric targets and several optional fields, this is inadequate.

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 generates a multi-day meal plan according to PRNT goals, including 3 meals plus snacks, and specifies the output components (meal details, daily summary, achievement rate). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_meal_plan_nutrients, which suggests retrieval rather than generation.

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 phrase '营养师调用' indicates the intended user (nutritionists), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for meal plan generation but lacks exclusions, conditions, or comparisons with get_meal_plan_nutrients.

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