estimate_energy

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses two important behaviors: the tool refuses to operate unless show_energy_estimates is enabled, and the output is never a prescription. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the purpose and methods, and the second adds the key behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only estimation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage constraints: opt-in requirement, refusal condition, method basis, and non-prescription framing. It is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema documents the 'workouts' parameter but leaves 'include_resting' mostly implicit. The description adds method context (Mifflin-St Jeor for resting, MET values for activities) that helps infer the parameter meanings, but it does not explicitly map parameters or describe all accepted activity key formats.

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 computes energy estimates using Mifflin-St Jeor resting energy and Compendium MET values, naming the specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: it is opt-in, requires the profile's show_energy_estimates setting, and produces estimates rather than prescriptions. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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