get_context_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Get' and the 'activity context' wording signal a non-mutating read, and the flexible date handling ('today', 'yesterday', or date expression') adds useful behavioral nuance. It does not mention failure behavior, permissions, or how logs are filtered, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by a parameter line, with no filler or restatement of schema fields. Every clause adds useful information.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, parameter formats, and day-scoped context. It is nearly complete, though a one-line nod to siblings like get_context_week for cross-day context would make the boundary even clearer.

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 Args section is essential, and it fully compensates by documenting the accepted date formats: 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'today', 'yesterday', or a date expression. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type and default value in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get activity context for a specific day' and enumerates what that includes: tasks, notes modified, and logs. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like get_context_week and get_context_note without extra text.

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 phrase 'for a specific day' clearly signals a day-scoped query, which implicitly tells an agent to reach for this tool rather than week, note, or focus context siblings. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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