unworn_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms the default lookback of 90 days but says nothing about what objects are counted (items? categories?), how results are ordered, or whether the threshold is inclusive/exclusive — meaningful gaps for a report whose whole semantics hinge on the window.

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?

One short sentence with the core concept front-loaded and the default immediately following. Nothing superfluous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. Still, with zero annotations the description should say more about scope (which items are eligible) and result behavior to be fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must explain 'days'. It does implicitly frame it as a lookback window via 'last 90 days (default)', but never defines the unit boundary (calendar days vs. days since last wear) or valid ranges.

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 states a specific outcome — a report of items not worn within a time window — which is clearly distinct from siblings like record_wear and packing_list. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'list/return'), but the resource and scope are 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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list_items or donate_triage, nor any prerequisites. The use case is only implied by the phrase 'what hasn't been worn lately'.

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