log_meal

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It reveals deduplication by date+recipe and returns confirmation with date, recipe, and people. This is adequate for a simple logging tool, though it doesn't mention side effects like whether duplicates are ignored or updated.

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?

Two sentences plus a USE WHEN clause, zero wasted words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description explains what it returns (confirmation fields). It could mention error handling or behavior on duplicate, but for a simple mutation tool, it is reasonably complete.

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% with decent descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining deduplication logic involving date and recipe, clarifying their role beyond the schema. This is slightly above the baseline of 3.

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 records a cooked meal for rotation tracking, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_recipe (adding new recipes) and get_meal_history (viewing history). However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from other logging tools.

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?

Includes explicit 'USE WHEN: logging what was cooked to avoid repeating meals in future planning', which guides the agent on when to invoke. Does not provide when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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