About this Mealie instance

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only (consistent with annotation), and goes beyond by detailing the exact output (version, identity components, permission flags) and their relevance to write tool success. It also contextualizes the tool as a diagnostic entry point for 403 errors, adding behavioral context not captured by the readOnlyHint annotation alone.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core reporting function, and the second adds a critical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, but has annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete for a simple diagnostic info tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description compensates by clearly explaining what the tool returns (version, identity, permissions), which is the only meaningful semantics. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 (for high coverage) or 4 (for zero params) by providing rich output context.

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 verb 'Reports' and specifies the resources: Mealie version, identity (user, group, household), and permission flags. It also adds a diagnostic usage hint, distinguishing it from sibling tools (none of which are about system info). This is a specific and complete purpose statement.

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 explicitly says 'Start here when a call fails with a 403,' providing a direct and actionable usage scenario. It also implies that checking permissions via this tool is a prerequisite for understanding write tool behavior, which helps the agent decide when to call it.

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