mealie_api_operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: that admin/auth/user/backup/maintenance operations are hidden by default and remain documentation-only even with include_sensitive=True. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema and is a valuable transparency note.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return contents and the sensitivity caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or filler language.

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 has an output schema, so detailed return formatting need not be in the description. The description covers core behavior (search a live catalog, return metadata) and the important sensitive-ops nuance. It is sufficiently complete for a catalog search tool with optional filters, though it could briefly mention how 'limit' and 'query' interact.

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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the include_sensitive parameter's effect (hidden operations remain documentation-only), but does not explain tag, limit, query, or method. These parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, but the description adds only partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'live Mealie OpenAPI operation catalog', immediately clarifying the tool's function. It lists returned fields (operation IDs, methods, paths, tags, parameters, content types), distinguishing it from sibling tools that execute operations rather than discover them.

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 clearly implies the catalog is for discovering operations (returns operation IDs) and gives context that sensitive ops are hidden by default. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'mealie_api_operation_request' or state when to use this discovery tool before invoking an operation, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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