list_dishes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool returns 'list of dish objects converted to dictionaries', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, if it filters results, pagination, error behavior, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 very short at two lines, but it includes an unnecessary return format note that could be omitted if output schema exists. It is concise but under-specifies the tool; brevity here sacrifices clarity. It earns its place but could be improved with one more sentence of context.

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 (no parameters), the description lacks completeness. It does not specify what kind of dishes (e.g., saved, all available), whether there are filters, permissions, or output structure. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has very little to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 100% because there are no parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters further, so it meets the baseline. However, it adds no value beyond the schema, which is acceptable given zero parameters.

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 'List all dishes' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'store_dish' or 'list_mealplans_by_date_range'. The purpose is vague because it does not specify what 'dishes' entails (e.g., user-defined, predefined) or how it differs from similar list operations.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_mealplans_by_date_range', nor any conditions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on context, alternatives, or exclusions.

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