kiosk_show_meal_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Render a meal planner scene', implying a display or visualization action, but does not specify whether this is read-only, requires specific permissions, affects system state, or has side effects like triggering updates. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Render a meal planner scene') and adds clarifying details ('with prep and shopping details') concisely. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read/write nature, side effects) and usage guidelines. For a simple rendering tool, this might be minimally viable, but it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is required, and it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('meal planner scene'), and mentions additional details ('prep and shopping details'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'kiosk_show_calendar' or 'kiosk_show_chores' by focusing on meal planning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'kiosk_show_scene', which might be a more general sibling, 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'kiosk_show_scene' (which might show generic scenes) and 'kiosk_next_scene' (which might cycle through scenes), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this meal planner tool. This lack of guidance could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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