get_today_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about the today scope and the data returned, and 'Returns' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose response format or potential error cases, though these may be covered by the output schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Returns a full dashboard') and then enumerates the specific content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero parameters, an existing output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, the description covers all necessary context. It names the three key data categories and the temporal scope, leaving no significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 what the tool does: 'Returns a full dashboard' with specific components (habits done/not done, pull-up GtG reps, mission progress). This distinguishes it from siblings like log_habit (a write action) and get_streak (a single metric).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, but the description implies it is the primary tool for a daily status overview. Lacks explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer typical usage.

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