skylight_list_meals

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context about the returned shape: each sitting has an `instances` array, `meal_category`, `meal_recipe`, and `profiles`. This goes beyond the structured annotation by explaining recurring date instances and linked data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of meaningful return fields. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the important returned fields and date-range scope. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or the optional frameId semantics, but for a read-only list tool with two well-documented required parameters, 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?

The schema already documents date_min and date_max formats and requiredness, so the description adds little for those parameters. The optional frameId parameter is not described in either the schema or the description, leaving a gap for how to scope the query; schema coverage of 67% keeps this at baseline rather than higher.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List planned meals (meal sittings) in a date range.' It also clarifies what the tool returns, including meal slots, linked recipes, and assigned profiles, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like skylight_list_meal_categories or skylight_list_recipes.

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 establishes the use case: retrieving what is on the meal plan for each day within a date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the meal-plan-focused wording gives sufficient context for an agent to select this tool over mutation or category-listing siblings.

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