Optimal foraging theory provides a suite of tools that model the best way that an animal will <br/>structure its searching and processing decisions in uncertain environments. It has been <br/>successful characterizing real patterns of animal decision making, thereby providing insights<br/>into why animals behave the way they do. However, it does not speak to how animals make<br/>decisions that tend to be adaptive. Using simulation studies, prior work has shown empirically<br/>that a simple decision-making heuristic tends to produce prey-choice behaviors that, on <br/>average, match the predicted behaviors of optimal foraging theory. That heuristic chooses<br/>to spend time processing an encountered prey item if that prey item's marginal rate of<br/>caloric gain (in calories per unit of processing time) is greater than the forager's<br/>current long-term rate of accumulated caloric gain (in calories per unit of total searching<br/>and processing time). Although this heuristic may seem intuitive, a rigorous mathematical<br/>argument for why it tends to produce the theorized optimal foraging theory behavior has<br/>not been developed. In this thesis, an analytical argument is given for why this<br/>simple decision-making heuristic is expected to realize the optimal performance<br/>predicted by optimal foraging theory. This theoretical guarantee not only provides support<br/>for why such a heuristic might be favored by natural selection, but it also provides<br/>support for why such a heuristic might a reliable tool for decision-making in autonomous<br/>engineered agents moving through theatres of uncertain rewards. Ultimately, this simple<br/>decision-making heuristic may provide a recipe for reinforcement learning in small robots<br/>with little computational capabilities.