plan_weekly_menu

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 mentions 'AI planning instructions,' which adds some context beyond a simple fetch, but fails to describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or how the AI instructions are generated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps, scoring 2.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get this week's menu with AI planning instructions for weekly meal planning.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the menu retrieval from the AI instructions, but it remains concise and clear, scoring 4.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and adds 'AI planning instructions,' but without annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or performance. The output schema should handle return values, so this is acceptable but not thorough, scoring 3.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details while being complete for 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get this week's menu with AI planning instructions for weekly meal planning.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('this week's menu'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_current_week_menu' by adding 'AI planning instructions.' However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_current_week_menu' in terms of scope or output format, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_week_menu' or 'analyze_daily_menu.' It implies usage for 'weekly meal planning' but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. This minimal guidance is insufficient for clear decision-making, scoring 2.

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