Fitbit Food Logs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'nutrition scope' requirement and implicitly suggests that the tool retrieves food data. It does not contradict annotations and adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the purpose, and the second adds a critical requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity and the presence of good annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and a prerequisite. However, it does not explain what 'food logs' contain (e.g., meals, nutrients), which could help an agent understand the returned data. For a straightforward retrieval tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema already describes 'date' and 'privacy_mode' adequately; 'response_format' lacks a description. Since coverage is neither high nor low, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'food logs', and the context 'for a date'. It also mentions the required scope 'nutrition scope'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fitbit_get_sleep_day by the resource claimed. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes 'food logs' (e.g., meals, nutrients), leaving some ambiguity.

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 states the requirement for 'nutrition scope', indicating when the tool is callable. However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it specify when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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