Pre-workout nutrition

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it uses 'goals, current intake, and optional WHOOP/Garmin context' and suggests 'light' pre-workout nutrition, providing mild behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, given 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, it could add brief parameter context without becoming verbose.

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 8 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and complex inputs like wearable_context objects, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify prerequisites, input formats, or what the suggestion looks like. The agent may need to infer usage from the name and sibling tools, but the description lacks necessary detail.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter details. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., focus, meal_type), the description only vaguely references 'goals, current intake, and wearable context', leaving many parameters (e.g., date, locale, workout_context) unexplained. This does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 suggests 'light pre-workout nutrition' using specified inputs. The verb 'suggest' and object 'pre-workout nutrition' are specific, and the context distinguishes it from general nutrition suggestions like nourish_suggest_next_meal. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 usage before a workout by mentioning 'pre-workout nutrition' and inputs like goals and current intake. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nourish_daily_coach for general guidance). No exclusions are provided.

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