get_macro_targets

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It explains the meaning of the parameter and what is returned, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication requirements. The behavioral transparency is adequate for a simple getter but could be improved.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an Args list. It front-loads the purpose and immediately explains the parameter. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return fields and the parameter. A minor gap is the lack of clarification on what happens if the date has no targets, or whether the return includes all days when using 'all'. However, overall it is complete enough for typical usage.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the parameter target_date: format (YYYY-MM-DD), default (today), and special value 'all' for weekly schedule. This adds significant value beyond the schema type information.

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 'Get current daily macro targets' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_macro_targets and list_macro_templates by focusing on retrieval. It specifies what is returned (protein, fat, carbs, calories, template name), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with set_macro_targets (modification) or get_daily_nutrition (which likely returns all nutrition). An agent would have no explicit context for tool selection beyond the name.

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