List personal nutrition memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about local storage and Telegram shortcuts, which is helpful but not critical. There is no contradiction with 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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning the optional parameter).

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 (one trivial parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the necessary context: what is listed (meals and preferences) and for what purpose (Telegram shortcuts). It is sufficiently complete.

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 sole parameter response_format is self-explanatory with enum values (json/markdown) and a default. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not mention or clarify the parameter. However, the parameter is trivial and well-defined in the schema.

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 reads local remembered meals and nutrition preferences, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nourish_list_intake (which lists daily intake logs) and nourish_forget_memory (which deletes memories).

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 implies the tool is for listing nutrition memory specific to Telegram shortcuts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nourish_list_intake or nourish_get_food. No exclusions or alternative names are provided.

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