Daily review

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

The description makes clear that the tool returns a template rather than directly performing memory operations, which matches the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, but the 'returned template guides you through' wording conveys a non-destructive, planning-only role.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences covering purpose, output behavior, and usage context. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 a simple optional date parameter and an output template, the description provides sufficient context: what it generates, which sub-tools are involved, and when to use it. The output schema is present, so return details need not be spelled out in prose.

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 only parameter, date, is fully documented in the schema with a default meaning. The description does not add significant extra semantics beyond that, but no required parameter details are missing.

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: generating a daily review guide that organizes work into memories and produces improvement suggestions. It also specifies the exact sub-tools the template guides through, making the intended function unambiguous.

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 says it is suitable at session end or on a daily schedule, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the mention of the sub-tool flow and the 'daily review' purpose gives enough guidance for when to use it.

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