get_lifestyle_log

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a read operation (retrieves entries) and states the default behavior (defaults to today). However, it does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it includes all listed categories, or any error conditions. Since it's a simple getter, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated. The description provides some transparency but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose in the first line and parameter details in an Args block. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value. It is appropriately short for a simple getter.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It tells the agent what data is returned and the parameter format. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., no entries for a date), but for a getter that is acceptable. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the date parameter: format YYYY-MM-DD and default to today. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, which only defines type and default null. For a single optional parameter, this is adequate.

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 tool returns lifestyle logging entries for a day and lists common categories (caffeine, alcohol, illness, travel, mood). The verb 'get' is implicit in the tool name and the description implies retrieval. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on lifestyle log data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar getters like get_daily_summary or get_nutrition. Purpose is clear, but not strongly differentiated from all siblings.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions it's for a day, which is a temporal scope but not a usage condition. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer that lifestyle logging is distinct from other health metrics, but the description doesn't help with that decision.

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