today

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does surprisingly well: it discloses the exact contents surfaced, including subtle signals like tests that passed only after being changed and the reasons tests failed. It does not state read-only safety explicitly or any auth/rate behavior, but the output-shape disclosure is strong.

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 lead clause 'What the agents did today' is well front-loaded, and every fragment is informative, but the whole thing is one sprawling sentence with nested parentheticals that is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 description correctly takes on the job of explaining return contents in detail, and it also states the default scope. For a single-optional-param read tool it is close to complete, missing only tool-selection routing against its siblings.

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 100%, so the single 'project' parameter is already fully documented. The description's 'For a project (default: this one)' merely restates the schema default, adding no syntax or matching nuance beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys the resource being produced: a per-agent daily activity digest covering request counts, files changed, test runs, per-request detail, warnings, and test failures. It is specific about content and scope, though it never names the closely related siblings (recap, handoff_note) to help an agent distinguish the right reporting tool.

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?

It offers a use-case hook ('for a standup or an end-of-day note'), which implies when to reach for it. However, there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives to route against the several other summary/status siblings, leaving selection to inference.

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