maimemo_get_today_items

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine extra context beyond that: the daily App-initialization dependency, beta-phase instability, and the auto-sync requirement. It stops short of describing return format, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the escaped newlines and bold-HTML beta disclaimer consume space with formatting noise rather than added substance. It is adequate but not tight.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing operational context (App initialization dependency, beta caveats, sync requirement). With no output schema, some return-shape information is absent, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 limit, is_new, voc_ids, spellings, and is_finished are already fully documented in the schema, including the mutual exclusivity of voc_ids and spellings. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('获取今日学习单词' – get today's study words) with scope ('今日'), so an agent immediately knows what is retrieved. However it does not distinguish itself from siblings like maimemo_query_study_records or maimemo_get_study_progress, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

Gives practical prerequisites: cannot retrieve if the App was not opened/initialized that day, and auto-sync must be enabled in the App. This is useful usage context, but it never names or contrasts an alternative sibling tool, so the agent must infer when to pick this over query_study_records.

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