auto_meal_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-generate' but doesn't explain what this generation entails, whether it's based on algorithms or templates, what happens to existing meal plans, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences, but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists parameters without explanation. While there's no wasted text, the structure doesn't effectively communicate the tool's full functionality or usage 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the auto-generation works, what the parameters actually mean, or how this differs from sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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 description lists all 6 required parameters by name, which adds value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. However, it provides no semantic context about what these parameters mean - for example, what 'meal_type_id' represents, what 'keyword_ids' should contain, or what 'addshopping' actually does. The parameter listing is helpful but lacks explanatory depth.

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 as 'Auto-generate meal plans' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_meal_plan' by emphasizing automation rather than manual creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other planning tools in the sibling list.

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 'create_meal_plan', 'list_meal_plans', and 'get_meal_plan', there's no indication of when automated generation is preferred over manual creation or retrieval. The required parameters are listed but without context about appropriate use cases.

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