mealie_list_organizers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but provides no details about pagination, search behavior, response format, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about potential limitations or required permissions.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource list. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity sacrifices essential detail, so it is near-optimal but not exceptional.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only lists supported kinds, omitting how to use pagination/search, what the response contains, or the meaning of 'organizers'. For a list tool with these potential complexities, this is insufficient context.

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. The description implies the 'kind' parameter accepts the enumerated organizer types, but it doesn't explain 'page', 'search', or 'per_page' semantics. The parameter names are conventional, but the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already reveals.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and enumerates the resources covered (tags, categories, foods, units, cookbooks, comments, timeline events). This clearly identifies the tool's scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like mealie_list_shopping_lists.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like mealie_list_shopping_lists and mealie_list_mealplans suggest overlapping functionality, but the description provides no exclusions or selection criteria.

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