feeding_guide

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

With no annotations, the description indicates an informational guide ('maps food→stat→job optimization') but doesn't explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or that it does not perform any feeding action. The behavioral implications are inferential rather than explicit.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two short sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and functionality without unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose, it lacks details about the output format or return value (e.g., list of foods, stats per food). Given there is no output schema, more context on what the user can expect would improve 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 coverage is 100% as the single parameter 'targetJob' is well-described with an enum and schema description. The tool description adds context about optimization mapping but does not provide new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 that the tool provides food recommendations based on a baseling's target job, using a mapping from food to stat to job optimization. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'feed_baseling' which actually performs feeding, and 'buy_food' which is about purchasing.

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 use when needing to know optimal food for a job, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar ones like 'feed_baseling' or 'get_food_stock'. No when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.

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