List daily logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering matches the Daily Logs list, a `total` count of matches is returned, and pagination is capped at 100 with a cursor round-trip. It stops short of mentioning permissions or what happens on an invalid cursor.

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?

Three dense sentences: what it lists, what it returns, how to page. Scope and values are front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return shape (date, arrival time, project, author, total) and pagination, which is what an agent needs to consume results. The unmentioned default limit of 30 and search-match behavior are minor residual gaps covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by clarifying that from/to are both inclusive and by explaining the page-size ceiling and cursor round-trip (next_cursor → cursor). It leaves the `search` semantics and the 30-item default to 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (daily logs) with scope: by date, optionally narrowed by project and range. It also names the sibling get_daily_log and how it differs, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for a date/project-filtered index, and use get_daily_log when the full record (notes, people, materials, equipment, weather) is needed. It also states the filter dimensions and their inclusive semantics.

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