Nourish privacy audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond what the tool's name implies, such as that it accesses local storage. Annotations carry the burden here; description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 efficiently lists the audit topics. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the topics clearly.

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 read-only audit tool with two enumerated parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It lists the key areas audited, implying the output will describe those areas. The description is complete given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 50% (only privacy_mode has a description). The tool description adds explanation for privacy_mode's enum options (summary, structured, raw), clarifying their differences. However, response_format is not explained in the description, and the schema only provides enum values without elaboration.

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 audits privacy-related aspects like local storage, secret handling, source licensing, and safety boundaries. It uses a specific verb (describe) and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on nutrition logging and profile management.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to run a privacy audit, nor does it differentiate from other informational tools like nourish_capabilities or nourish_agent_manifest.

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