get_meal_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid ID), or the response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval.

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 with a single sentence, 'Get meal plan by ID', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for effective use.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' returns (e.g., meal plan details, recipes), how to handle errors, or tie into the sibling tools for a cohesive workflow. This makes it inadequate for reliable agent use without additional context.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning—it only mentions 'by ID' without explaining what the ID represents (e.g., numeric identifier from 'list_meal_plans'), its format, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Get meal plan by ID' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('meal plan'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails—does it retrieve details, metadata, or something else? It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_meal_plans' or 'update_meal_plan', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving a single meal plan's details after listing IDs with 'list_meal_plans', or when to prefer 'update_meal_plan' for modifications. The description implies usage by ID but offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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