calculate_calories_burned

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 mentions using MET values but lacks details on assumptions, accuracy, or limits (e.g., valid weight range, MET database). For a calculation tool, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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?

Two short sentences: one for purpose and one for related tools. No fluff, front-loaded with the key action. Every word contributes 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 simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It could mention the output format more explicitly, but the return value is hinted. The reference to 'list_bundles' aids discoverability.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides ('activity', 'duration_minutes', 'weight_kg'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Estimate calories burned during physical activity using MET values', which includes a specific verb ('estimate'), a resource ('calories burned'), and the method (MET values). It also mentions the return value, distinguishing it from siblings that calculate other things.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (estimating calories burned) and references 'list_bundles' for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool among the many sibling tools.

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