Add a random meal

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the selection 'honours meal plan rules', which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it omits details about what happens when rules cannot be satisfied (e.g., no matching recipe) or whether it overwrites existing entries.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and avoids extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though slightly more detail could be included without becoming verbose.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., created entry or success message). It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., need for configured rules) and error behavior, leaving significant gaps in context for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the parameter descriptions are already complete. The description restates that the tool uses 'day and slot' (mapped to 'date' and 'entry_type'), but does not add significant new constraints or context beyond the schema. The high baseline means a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool picks a recipe for a given day and meal slot while respecting household meal plan rules, which matches the title 'Add a random meal'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_mealplan_entry' by emphasizing randomness and rule adherence, though it does not explicitly confirm that it creates a meal plan entry.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_mealplan_entry' or 'suggest_recipes'. It implies use when a random selection is desired, but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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