Mindfulness

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

The description far exceeds what annotations convey: it reveals the decryption behavior, teaches the semantics of the coverage block (days_covered is distinct days not row count, window_satisfied:false means shorter history, more_available:true means older data exists), and warns against reporting a limit-shaped window as the extent of the data. These are precisely the non-obvious misinterpretation traps annotations cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries non-obvious operational value; the 🔴 marker draws attention to the most critical caution. It is dense, and the final sentence somewhat restates the more_available rule, but no sentence 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 medium-complexity tool with an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the failure-prone behaviors: coverage interpretation, limit truncation, and re-read strategy. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly except an explanation of the `fresh` parameter, which is the one notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it gives `owner` a clear role (person filter) and `limit` nuanced truncation semantics (small values leave older decryptable days behind; larger values recover them). However, `fresh` (boolean, default false) is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters entirely unexplained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb-resource pair ('Decrypt recent daily mindfulness summaries') and names the exact fields returned (session count, total minutes). Among roughly thirty sibling getters covering sleep, HRV, water, food, weights, and workouts, this is the only mindfulness-specific reader, so an agent can disambiguate it immediately.

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 operational guidance within the tool ('Use `owner` prefix to filter by person', re-read with a larger `limit`), but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over an alternative or when not to use it. Selection is implied by the tool name and domain rather than stated.

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