show_dayRender the user's day as the interactive 24-hour reassign dial, right in the conversation — use it whenever they want to SEE their day, their schedule laid out, how full it looks, or to visually move things around. Defaults to today; pass date (ISO YYYY-MM-DD) for another day. For reading or reasoning about the plan in text, prefer get_schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds that it 'Defaults to today' and renders 'right in the conversation,' adding context about behavior beyond the annotations. The description adds value without contradicting the structured data.
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?
Three sentences, zero waste. Every sentence earns its place: the first states purpose, the second covers parameter usage, the third directs to an alternative. Front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 display/visualization tool with readOnlyHint=true, no output schema needed, and a single optional parameter, the description covers the essential ground. It could note that this renders an interactive element versus a static output, but the description's explicit mention of 'interactive' and 'right in the conversation' adequately sets expectations for a read-only visualization 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?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, there is only one optional parameter (date) with a self-evident regex pattern. The description compensates well by stating 'Defaults to today; pass date (ISO YYYY-MM-DD) for another day,' directly documenting the parameter's meaning, format, and default behavior. With a single simple param at 0% coverage, the description carries the full explanatory load effectively.
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 verb+resource: 'Render the user's day as the interactive 24-hour reassign dial, right in the conversation.' It specifies the exact visual artifact (24-hour reassign dial) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's for SEEING the day visually. It's specific enough to differentiate from get_schedule, which is mentioned explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it whenever they want to SEE their day, their schedule laid out, how full it looks, or to visually move things around.' It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'For reading or reasoning about the plan in text, prefer get_schedule,' naming the alternative tool directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: reading (get_schedule, find_event, get_energy, get_weather, show_day), scheduling (schedule, confirm_schedule), event editing (write_events, delete_events), backlog management (manage_backlog), category management (manage_categories), reflection (review_day), undo, and feedback. The boundary between schedule and write_events is explicitly clear (exact times vs. conflict-free search), and get_schedule vs. show_day are differentiated by text vs. visual presentation. The only minor ambiguity is that manage_backlog includes a 'schedule' op, but that's internal to the tool.
All but two tools follow verb_noun snake_case: confirm_schedule, delete_events, find_event, get_energy, get_schedule, get_weather, manage_backlog, manage_categories, review_day, send_feedback, show_day, write_events. The exceptions are 'schedule' and 'undo', which are bare verbs and thus slightly break the consistent pattern.
14 tools is well-scoped for a comprehensive scheduling assistant: read surfaces, write surfaces, assisted scheduling, backlog/category management, reflection, undo, weather/energy, and feedback. Each tool covers a distinct capability, and none feels redundant. Only the extra weather and energy getters could arguably be merged with get_schedule, but they serve specific use cases.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: create (schedule, write_events), read (get_schedule, find_event), update (write_events, manage_backlog, manage_categories), delete (delete_events, review_day discard), plus undo and confirmation flows. There are no obvious dead ends or missing CRUD operations for the scheduling domain. Weather and energy are bonuses that support informed scheduling decisions.