Calorie-Tracking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a logging operation, implying data creation/mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens after logging, error cases, or how to interpret results, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'food items and calories', which partially maps to the 'description' parameter, but doesn't explain 'mealType' or provide details on format, constraints, or how parameters relate to each other. This leaves significant gaps.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Log') and resource ('a meal'), and mentions what data is involved ('with food items and calories'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_food' or 'get_daily_summary', which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_food' for looking up food items or 'get_daily_summary' for viewing logged meals. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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