Afterglow Checklists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: account onboarding and plan limits gate the result, and the returned disclaimer must be preserved. That is real behavioral information beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the trigger, the constraints, and the output caveat. Each sentence adds something, though 'in one of your Afterglow checklists' mildly duplicates the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the usage trigger, plan-limit caveat and disclaimer handling. Only the module_id selection rationale remains thin.

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% for the single required module_id, so the description carries the burden. It does name the four category values (legal, money, home, coparenting), effectively restating the enum rather than explaining what the parameter does or how to choose a module. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Show available items and saved progress in one of your Afterglow checklists.' That is enough to distinguish it from the write-side sibling set_checklist_status, though neither sibling is named explicitly. Purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use when you ask for unfinished legal, money, home or coparenting checklist tasks' gives an explicit usage trigger tied to the four module categories. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to set_checklist_status for state changes, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world). The description goes beyond that by disclosing exactly what is returned (email, actual verification state) and explicitly scoping out story/coaching history, which is meaningful privacy context. It does not discuss caching, rate limits, or auth prerequisites, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return payload and the exclusion boundary. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and no nested objects, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: identity of the account resource, what fields come back, and what data is deliberately not accessed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The empty schema cannot be misinterpreted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Identify the Afterglow account connected for this conversation') and further specifies the payload (account email and real verification state). The sibling tools operate on a completely different resource (checklists), so no disambiguation is needed.

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 phrase 'for this conversation' establishes the context in which the tool applies, and the closing boundary statement ('Does not read your story or coaching history') tells the agent what this tool must not be used to retrieve. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for account-history data, so no explicit alternative routing.

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

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the write 'overwrites that item's existing progress in the connected account' and describes idempotency ('repeating the same item and status preserves the completed timestamp and returns the saved state'). This enriches the destructiveHint with concrete consequences.

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?

Four sentences that are dense but each earns its place, with the core action front-loaded. No wasted filler, though slightly long for such a simple tool.

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 3-param mutation with an output schema, the description covers the action, precondition, side effects, idempotency, and return behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the status values (done, to do, not applicable), constrains item_id to the exact user-selected ID, and implies the confirmation requirement that maps to the `confirmed` const. It stops short of detailing the item_id format or why `confirmed` must be true.

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?

States a specific verb/action (save done/todo/na) on a specific resource (an item from an Afterglow checklist), scoped to 'the exact item ID the user selected.' This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_checklist.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: 'Obtain confirmation of the item and status before calling.' It implies usage context (user-selected item) but names no explicit alternative or when-not condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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