show_week_macros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it renders an inline/interactive MCP visual and returns a short text summary alongside it, which is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action, scope, output style, and usage preference are all front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a read-only, non-destructive tool with one optional parameter, a full input schema, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is shown, in what form, and what the user receives.

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 100%: the only parameter 'range' is fully documented with an enum and default. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond implying the default 7-day window, so it appropriately relies on the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('show'), a specific resource ('past 7 days of calories and macros vs targets'), and the output form ('inline chart'). The title 'This week in nutrition' reinforces the domain and distinguishes it from sibling show_week_* tools focused on fitness score, workouts, sleep, and steps.

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 gives clear guidance: when the user asks about this, prefer calling the tool and rendering the interactive MCP app rather than describing rows in text. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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