list_foods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the core read-only behavior ('List all foods/ingredients') and the filtering capability, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, or the exact semantics of search (e.g., substring vs exact match). This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and resource ('List all foods/ingredients'), then adds the filtering capability, making it highly efficient and easily scannable.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how search interacts with page/perPage. Given the lack of annotations, a short note on pagination or that results are paginated would improve completeness, but the tool is straightforward enough that the current description is minimally viable.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the 'search' parameter as a 'search term to filter foods', which is already stated in the schema. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('foods/ingredients in Mealie'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like list_recipes by the resource type. It also mentions the ability to filter by search term, which further clarifies its scope.

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 usage (when you need to list foods/ingredients) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_food or list_categories. It does not state any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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