cronometer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (effective macro targets and template name) and the date options, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, followed by return details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well, but could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication needs or response format hints, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'target_date' parameter's purpose, format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), default behavior ('defaults to today'), and special value ('all' for weekly schedule), fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('Get current daily macro targets') and resources ('from Cronometer'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_daily_nutrition' or 'list_macro_templates' by focusing on target retrieval rather than actual nutrition data or template lists.

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 on when to use the tool (to get macro targets for a specific date or all days of the week) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'set_macro_targets' or 'set_weekly_macro_schedule' for modification tasks.

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