List foods

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that many instances return no foods and that an empty result should not be treated as an error, which helps agents avoid false failure interpretations.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and adds one important clarification without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it concise and well structured.

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 that an output schema is present and there are no nested objects, the description does not need to detail return fields. It sufficiently covers the main behavioral context, including empty results, though it could have briefly explained the search parameter's semantics for complete 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 schema already describes three of the four parameters (page, per_page, order_direction), and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. The search parameter lacks a description in both the schema and the tool description, leaving a minor gap, but overall parameter coverage is adequate.

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 lists structured foods, identifies them as the ingredient vocabulary Mealie matches ingredient lines against, and distinguishes the resource from other list tools like list_units and list_organizers. The added clarification about empty results further sharpens the purpose.

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 useful interpretive guidance by explaining that an empty result is meaningful rather than a failure. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over sibling alternatives such as list_units or search_recipes, so usage guidance is only partially covered.

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