sum_diet_intake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool computes (aggregates nutrients, compares to targets, provides achievement rates and suggestions) but does not mention whether it is read-only, how missing data is handled, or any limitations. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 conveys the essential purpose and outputs without redundancy. Every phrase contributes valuable information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main behavior: summarizing multiple days, comparing to target, and giving actionable results. However, it lacks explicit input format details and usage context, so it is not fully complete for an agent needing to construct a correct request.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only implicitly maps 'diary' to the multi-day diet diary and 'target' to the target object. It adds meaning by listing the nutrients involved, but does not explain the structure of diary items or target fields, which are needed for actual invocation.

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's function: aggregating energy/protein/potassium/phosphorus/sodium from a multi-day diet diary and comparing against targets to produce achievement rates and action suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('汇总' / summarize) and resource ('多日饮食日记' / multi-day diet diary), and is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like lookup_food_nutrients or calc_nutrition_target.

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: when you have a multi-day diet diary and need a summary of key nutrients with target comparison. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over lookup or substitution tools.

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