log_meal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a meal is recorded, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, authentication requirements, or whether the entry is appended to the health diary. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it immediately understandable.

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 simple logging tool, the description combined with the full schema covers the essentials. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., what happens after logging, any constraints) and absence of annotations leaves the description slightly incomplete. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 5 parameters having descriptive text. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema documentation.

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 'Registra uma refeição consumida no diário de saúde' clearly states the verb (registra), the resource (refeição consumida), and the context (diário de saúde). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_water and log_exercise, which target different types of entries.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or compare with other logging tools, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and basic purpose.

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