on_this_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that memories are grouped by year, defaults to today's date, and supports fuzzy matching via date window. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no memories are found.

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 four sentences long, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by usage guidelines, output format, and defaults/features. It is front-loaded and concise, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers main purpose, usage scenarios, and some behavior. However, it lacks details on how fuzzy matching works, what the date window entails, and the role of project/tier parameters. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values.

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 add meaning. It explains that month/day default to today's date and mentions fuzzy matching, but does not clarify what 'date window' means or explain parameters like project, tier, and limit. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for most parameters.

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 retrieves memories for a specific month+day across all years, using the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'memories'. It also lists use cases like reflecting on past events, finding anniversaries, and reviewing historical context, which distinguishes it from other memory retrieval tools.

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section outlining specific scenarios for using the tool. It mentions defaults and supports date window for fuzzy matching. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or suggest alternative tools from the sibling list.

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