After-log review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's role is lighter. It adds that the tool explains changes and next corrections, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose output format or any edge cases.

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 a single sentence, which is efficient but under-specified. It lacks structural elements like sections or bullet points to clarify behavior, parameter roles, or usage context. Every word is earned, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits return value details, parameter explanations, and any mention of how the review is generated. The sibling tools indicate many similar reviews, yet no differentiation is provided.

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 provides no information about any of the 8 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. Parameters like 'focus', 'meal_type', and 'response_format' are left undefined, forcing reliance on enum values alone.

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 states the tool reviews the day after a meal log and explains changes plus next actions, which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from similar tools like nourish_daily_summary or nourish_daily_coach, making it vague about its unique purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical triggers, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context signals.

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