calculate_calories_burned

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the use of MET values and returns calories burned, but does not disclose limitations, assumptions (e.g., standard MET values, does not account for age/gender), or accuracy. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads purpose and method, then provides a helpful pointer to related calculators.

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?

Despite having an output schema (per context), the description clarifies the return value. However, it lacks details about the calculation model, data sources, or personalization factors. With many sibling calculators, a more complete description would help an agent select the right tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about using MET values but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. No additional detail on how parameters are used in calculation.

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 tool estimates calories burned during physical activity using MET values. It uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and identifies the resource ('calories burned'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the 'sante' bundle and listing related tools via list_bundles.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, it directs users to 'list_bundles' for related calculators, offering contextual awareness but no exclusions or comparisons with specific siblings.

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