analyze_diet_diary

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. It does list specific analysis categories and suggests an assessment of dietary risks, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it fetches data from elsewhere, or how findings are returned. This leaves some ambiguity but is not misleading.

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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence with a clear action and a colon-delimited list of specific analysis outcomes. There is no filler, and every phrase adds value.

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 only two simple parameters, an output schema exists, and the action is clearly stated with a concrete list of dietary risk factors, the description is largely complete. The main shortfall is not stating data-source prerequisites, but this is a minor gap relative to the tool's complexity.

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 has no descriptions for its two parameters, and the description's coverage is 0%. However, '最近 N 天' partially clarifies the 'days' parameter, and '患儿' implies patient_id. It does not explicitly define defaults, ranges, or the relationship between 'N' and the schema, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific action ('analyze') and resource ('diet diary'), and enriches it with a clear list of target findings: high-potassium fruits, old fire soup, processed food sodium/phosphorus excess, protein imbalance, and hidden allergens. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_diet_diary or compute_nutrition_targets.

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 implies the tool is for clinical diet review and risk identification, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_diet_diary or generate_meal_plan, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context like needing labs. The intended use is inferable but not explicit.

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