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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool returns (micronutrient breakdown with period averages), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it has rate limits, or what happens with invalid dates. The description adds some context about the output format but lacks comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by usage context and parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more concise by combining the two date explanations.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides good context about what the tool does and documents the parameters well despite 0% schema description coverage. For a read operation with 2 parameters and output schema provided, this description is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 provides clear documentation for both parameters (start_date and end_date) including format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default values (7 days ago for start_date, today for end_date). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain what happens with null values or invalid date ranges.

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 micronutrient breakdown for meal planning' with specific details about what it shows (vitamins, minerals, other micronutrients per day with period averages) and why to use it (identify nutrient gaps and plan meals). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_nutrition' or 'get_food_log' which might provide overlapping functionality.

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 implied usage guidance by stating the tool's purpose (identify nutrient gaps and plan meals) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_daily_nutrition' or 'get_food_log'. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions for use.

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