mealie_parse_ingredients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns structured results and gives an example input, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, error handling behavior, or rate limits. For a parse operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the main action, provides an illustrative example, lists output fields, and closes with a practical usage tip. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff.

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 (one parameter, no annotations) and has an output schema. The description explains the input format, gives an example, lists the output fields, and suggests a downstream integration. It is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly, though it could mention potential errors or edge cases for full completeness.

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 input schema has only one parameter (ingredients) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly stating it 'Accepts a list of raw ingredient strings' and provides a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not specify constraints like list size or formatting edge cases.

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: 'Parse ingredient lines via Mealie's ingredient parser.' It specifies the input (list of raw ingredient strings) and the output (structured results with quantity, unit, food, note fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle updates, deletions, or other recipe operations.

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 provides clear context by explaining when this parser is useful: when raw ingredient strings need to be converted into structured fields. It also gives an explicit downstream integration tip: 'The parsed results can be passed directly to mealie_update_recipe_ingredients.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name any alternative parser tools.

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