cronometer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool creates recurring entries that auto-log, uses default servings for quantity, and has default values for diary_group and days_of_week. However, it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, or what happens on conflicts (e.g., if a repeat item already exists for those days).

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 well-structured: purpose first, then quantity explanation, usage hint, and parameter details. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise (e.g., the quantity example could be integrated more tightly). Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and tool purpose. Since an output schema exists, return values needn't be described. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error conditions or side effects.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: explains quantity units (default servings), sources for IDs (search_foods), diary_group options, and days_of_week format with examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose: 'Add a recurring food entry that auto-logs on selected days.' It specifies the verb ('add'), resource ('recurring food entry'), and key behavior ('auto-logs on selected days'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_food_entry (which likely adds one-time entries).

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 for usage: it references search_foods to find required IDs and explains the tool's role in creating recurring entries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. add_food_entry for one-time entries) or mention prerequisites beyond ID sourcing.

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