what_was_i_doing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that events are summarized and coarse by default, and that limit caps event count. However, it does not explain what 'coarse' means, timezone handling, or whether it includes all-day events. It adds some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and defaults. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks guidance on semantics of 'coarse' events, interactions with limit, and fit within the sibling toolset. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves ambiguity that could lead to incorrect 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it specifies day uses YYYY-MM-DD format and defaults to today, and limit caps event count. This adds clear meaning to both parameters beyond the bare schema, though it omits details like limit bounds or behavior when omitted.

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 the tool provides a timeline for a local calendar day, returning summarized events. The verb is implicit but the resource and action are clear: it retrieves what you were doing on a given day. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like day_recap, so it is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as day_recap or active_now. It mentions default behavior (today, coarse) but does not specify use cases, exclusions, or preferability. This is a clear gap for a tool with several siblings.

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