What matters today

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. It discloses the nature of the output (a ranked list of open/quiet items) and the absence of arguments. It implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly, but for a summary tool that's acceptable. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, which is appropriate given the simplicity. A 5 would involve explicit statement of no side effects or auth needs.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence defining the tool's functionality and the second providing usage guidance. The 'Takes no arguments' sentence is redundant but does not detract. Information is front-loaded: purpose first, usage second. No word is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (ranked list of open items and quiet projects), when to use it, and that it takes no arguments. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly. There are no missing pieces given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty object. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description redundantly states 'Takes no arguments,' which adds no new meaning beyond what the empty schema already conveys, but it doesn't hurt. Thus, the score matches the baseline.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns: 'The few things that matter today, ranked out of everything still open, with any projects that have gone quiet.' This is a specific, unambiguous output that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like capture, add_project, and mark_done, which perform different actions (capturing, adding, marking done).

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 explicit usage triggers: 'Call it when the user asks what they should be doing, what is outstanding, or at the start of a working session.' This clearly tells the agent when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the siblings are semantically distinct (they are data-modifying actions), so the guidance is sufficient. A 5 would require explicit 'when not to use' or contrast with siblings, which is missing.

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