get_mission_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Returns' and details the exact computed metrics included. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or mention any prerequisites, which is acceptable for a simple getter but could be slightly more explicit.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses three concise bullet points to list key data points. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully communicates the tool's scope and value. It explains what the overview includes and contrasts implicitly with sibling tools, providing sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning since there are none, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 'Returns a full 90-day mission progress overview' and enumerates specific content (days elapsed/remaining, habit completion rates, total GtG reps). This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like get_today_status and get_streak, which focus on narrower scopes.

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 implies the tool is for mission-level progress reports rather than daily or streak-specific queries, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is inferable from the tool name and content list, but explicit guidance is absent.

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