mfp_list_meals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output scope ('foods and ids') and a stability marker, but provides no additional behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or limits.

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?

One short sentence with the action and key output front-loaded, followed by a concise stability tag. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with one self-documenting optional parameter, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete with explicit alternative routing, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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%: the description does not mention the response_format parameter or explain how to choose markdown vs json. Although the schema itself fully documents the parameter, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema as required when coverage is low.

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?

States a specific action ('List'), resource ('your saved Meals'), and includes the key return fields ('their foods and ids'). This distinguishes it from siblings like mfp_list_own_foods, which lists custom foods, and mfp_get_diary, which lists diary 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 phrasing 'List your saved Meals' implies the tool is for retrieving previously saved meals, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are named.

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