group_tree_by_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the grouping into date buckets but does not disclose whether the summary includes counts, sizes, or if it is recursive. The output format is not described, leaving behavior partly ambiguous.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action but lacks details about output format, recursion, and performance considerations. For a simple tool, it is acceptable but could be improved.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'a directory' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Relative path within the file server root'. The optional nature of the parameter is not clarified in the description.

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 'Summarize' and the resource 'all files under a directory grouped by modification date buckets'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like group_tree_by_type and search_by_date by specifying the grouping criterion (date buckets).

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 implies the tool is useful for getting a high-level view of file modification ages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like find_recent or search_by_date. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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