get_diet_diary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the diary content and the time window, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or that it is a read-only operation. For a simple fetch tool, the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word 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?

With only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the purpose and output content sufficiently. It does not explain error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is reasonably complete at this length.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It connects 'N天' to the `days` parameter and '患儿' to `patient_id`, and explains the diary content. However, it does not explain defaults, allowed values, or the exact role of `patient_id` beyond identifying the child, 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 clearly states the action (获取/retrieve), the resource (diet diary), and the scope (recent N days), and enumerates the content categories (meals/food/grams/cooking method). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_diet_diary, which analyzes rather than retrieves.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when the raw recent diet diary is needed—and its scope is obvious from the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for analysis or explain when not to use it, so it lacks formal exclusions but still provides clear context.

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