get_macro_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unset macros return null and that a template name is included, but says nothing about read-only standing, error conditions, or data freshness beyond the implicit 'current'.

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?

Return shape is front-loaded, followed by the argument block; every sentence carries information. The Args block is slightly verbose in indentation but contains no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-documented, and the description covers the single parameter's semantics and null behavior. Given only one optional parameter and a present output schema, the definition is nearly complete; only usage-relative-to-siblings is missing.

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, and it largely does: it documents the YYYY-MM-DD format, the default-to-today behavior, and the magic value 'all' for the weekly schedule — none of which appear in the schema. A full 5 is withheld only because the interplay with 'today' timezone/ownership is unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get current daily macro targets from Cronometer') and its scope (effective protein/fat/carbs/calories plus template name). The read semantics clearly contrast with the sibling set_macro_targets, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains the two modes of the tool (specific date vs. full weekly schedule via 'all') and the default of today, which is implied usage guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over related tools such as list_macro_templates or get_daily_nutrition, and there are no exclusions.

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