get_recent_foods

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns frequency counts and flags recipes to prevent logging a whole batch as one portion, which is a subtle behavioral hazard an agent should know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance with no wasted words. 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 zero parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context for correct invocation. It could mention ordering or limits, but those are likely implied by 'recently' and are not critical for the agent to use the tool at a basic level.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output and usage rather than parameter details. Nothing more is needed here.

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 identifies the resource ('recently logged foods') and the specific data returned ('how often each was logged'). It also signals a distinct use case ('log my usual') that separates it from search-focused sibling tools like search_foods.

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 names a concrete workflow: 'find the food here, then add_food_entry' as the fastest route for 'log my usual'. It also cautions about recipes, helping avoid misuse. It does not formally list exclusions or compare to all sibling alternatives, but the primary usage context is clear.

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