plan_dinners

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: fetching random recipes (count 1-10), merging ingredients, creating or using a list (default 'Veckans middagar'), and returning a menu. It does not clarify side effects like overwriting existing lists but provides sufficient transparency for typical use.

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 conveys all necessary information without redundancy.

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 (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers inputs, process, and output. It explains the return value ('Returnerar menyn'), which is sufficient despite no 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that `count` determines the number of random recipes (1-10) and that `list_name` controls the list name (default creates 'Veckans middagar'). This adds value beyond the schema's type and defaults.

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 action: planning weekly dinners by fetching random recipes, merging ingredients, and adding to a list. It distinguishes from siblings like `random_recipes` (which only fetches recipes) by including list creation and ingredient merging.

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 usage for planning dinners but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. While the context and sibling list suggest `random_recipes` as an alternative, the lack of explicit guidance limits the score.

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