my_day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the response contains (the five sections), which matters since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about truncation behavior, section ordering, empty-section handling, or whether results are scoped to the authenticated user.

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?

A single compact phrase with zero filler, and the most informative element (the section list) is front-loaded after the framing clause. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the section enumeration does useful work describing the return shape, and annotations cover read-only semantics. But for a three-parameter aggregation tool the description leaves the workspace scoping and per-section limit behavior unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 67%, with 'workspace' carrying no description at all. The description never mentions the date, limit, or workspace parameters — 'today' only hints at the date default — so it does not compensate for the undocumented workspace filter or clarify that limit applies per section.

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 names the resource and scope concretely by enumerating the sections returned (calendar, to-dos, my issues, reviews, unread inbox) for 'today'. An agent can tell this is a personal daily aggregation read, distinct from the many create_*/delete_* siblings. It stops short of a verb phrase, but the aggregation intent is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among siblings such as changes_since or get_activity that could also surface recent activity. The agent must infer that this is a daily-summary entry point purely from the name and the section list.

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