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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether authentication is required, what format the summary returns, if there are rate limits, or what happens when no data exists for the specified date.

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 at just 5 words, front-loading the essential purpose without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the summary contains, how it's formatted, whether authentication is needed, or how to interpret the optional date parameter, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'date', and the tool description provides no information about this parameter. The mention of 'today's' in the description might imply a default behavior when no date is provided, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving the parameter's purpose and format completely undocumented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('today's calorie intake summary'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_weekly_report', which suggests a similar reporting function but for a different time period.

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 'get_weekly_report' or 'search_food'. It mentions 'today's' which implies a specific time context, but doesn't clarify if this is the only valid usage or if the optional 'date' parameter allows historical queries.

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