Today's pending layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure. It candidly warns that the call 'may first persist lazy expiry/drip housekeeping even if you only meant to read,' revealing potential write side effects. It also clarifies the meaning of remainingMs and hasEverIntaken, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: definition, item semantics, caveat, usage context, and side-effect warning. No redundant or filler content.

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 annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers meaning of results, behavior on empty lists, prerequisite actions, and potential side effects. The reference to daily_triage and README provides additional context without overburdening the description.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to describe; the baseline of 4 applies. However, the description enhances understanding by explaining the meaning of the returned fields (remainingMs, hasEverIntaken), which is helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: 'The 24-hour layer, oldest first — the actual to-do list.' This differentiates it from siblings by specifying the layer type and ordering. Also highlights its role as 'where daily_triage starts,' making its purpose and position among related tools 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'This is where daily_triage starts' and 'call intake first' when hasEverIntaken is false. While it doesn't explicitly say 'don't use list_layer,' the contextual cues are strong enough to guide correct selection.

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