compute_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core algorithm (Mifflin-St Jeor BMR, TDEE, goal adjustment), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., data persistence), authentication needs, rate limits, or edge cases.

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 is well-structured and front-loaded with the action. It is concise with no wasted words, but it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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 complex nested input and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the output format (e.g., calories, macro grams or percentages) or explain how each profile field is used. The lack of cross-reference to sibling tools further limits completeness.

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 0%, and the description only says 'from a profile' without explaining individual fields like age, height_cm, weight_kg, gender, activity_level, or goal. It does not clarify how these parameters influence the computation, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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 verb (compute) and resource (daily calorie + macro targets), specifies the exact formula chain (Mifflin-St Jeor BMR -> TDEE -> goal), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle adjustments, planning, or logging.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adjust_daily_calories. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice for selecting this tool.

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