tummy_times_list_tummy_times

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description is minimal and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List'), what the response format contains (though output schema exists), or any rate limits, pagination behavior, or potential side effects. Since it's a list operation, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and no additional context (e.g., default ordering) is given.

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, very concise and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose ('List tummy time session records') and mentions filters without wasting words. No redundant 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?

Given the tool has 10 optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description is somewhat minimal but might be sufficient for a straightforward list operation. However, it lacks guidance on how filters interact (e.g., can start and end be used together? Are they exclusive?), and doesn't mention the default limit of 50 or how to paginate. The output schema may cover return structure, so the main gap is semantic context around the filters and usage scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't supplement it with extra context, such as how filters combine (AND vs OR) or examples of ordering values.

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 'List tummy time session records with optional filters' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tummy time session records'), and mentions optional filters. It aligns with the tool name and differentiates it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete tummy time records, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for distinction.

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 usage for listing records, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs. get vs. create). The schema suggests filtering options, but the description doesn't explain scenarios like 'use this to fetch all sessions for a child' or 'use list_children to get child IDs first' (though the child_id parameter description does mention that).

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