cronometer-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'every food entry with macros and micronutrients,' which gives some behavioral insight into output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but it's only moderately informative about behavior.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose, follows with usage context, and ends with parameter details. Each sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains returns, the third gives usage context, and the last documents parameters. Minor verbosity in the second sentence keeps it from a perfect score.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage hints, and parameter semantics. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it could better address behavioral aspects like data scope or limitations. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more context on tool behavior would enhance 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining both parameters: 'start_date: Start date as YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today)' and 'end_date: End date as YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today).' This clarifies format, purpose, and default behavior beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like date ranges or null handling.

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: 'Get detailed food log with individual food entries and full nutrition.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('food log') with additional detail about what's included ('individual food entries and full nutrition'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_nutrition' or 'get_food_details,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions the tool is 'Great for analyzing what was eaten and spotting nutrient gaps,' which implies some context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_daily_nutrition' or 'get_food_details.' There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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