get_food_diary_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation is read-only and readable by all callers. This directly communicates safety and lack of side effects, which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on aggregation behavior or potential edge cases beyond that.

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 immediately conveys the action, resource, return, and read-only nature. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, and the presence of an output schema likely covers return value details. The description covers the read-only aspect and the aggregation purpose. It could be more complete by naming the parameters or hinting at aggregation logic, but given the simple nature and output schema, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only indirectly references the patient via '某患者' but does not explain 'caller' or provide any parameter-level detail. The schema itself only lists types without descriptions, leaving the agent with insufficient semantic guidance.

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 a specific action ('读取并聚合' - read and aggregate) on a specific resource (a patient's food diary) and specifies the return value (diet_diary_3d). It also explicitly marks the tool as read-only, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'upsert_food_diary' that implies writing.

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 its usage context (reading and aggregating a patient's food diary summary) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'assess_intake_vs_target' or 'calc_prnt_targets'. The read-only hint offers some guidance but no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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