get_chores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the one thing the annotations cannot: with no output schema, it discloses the return shape ("assignees, due dates, completion status"), which is a genuine gap-filler. It still omits behavioral traits an agent would want — that results default to pending-only, today through +7 days, and whether includes-late behavior changes totals.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the triggering examples, then the return shape — a sensible order and no filler sentences. The four-item example list is slightly longer than needed for the incremental value of the fourth entry, but each example does illustrate a distinct parameter scenario.

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-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, and return contents, so an agent can call it confidently without opening anything else. Gaps are the implicit defaults (status=pending, 7-day window, includeLate=true) and any note on result volume, which the description leaves entirely to 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter's meaning and default is already documented in structured form; the baseline of 3 applies. The sample questions loosely map to date, dateEnd, and assignee ("this week's chores", "What chores does [name] have?"), but that mapping is implicit and nothing is said about status values or what happens when date and dateEnd conflict.

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?

"Get chores from Skylight" supplies a specific verb plus resource, and the four sample questions pin down the exact scope (today, this week, chore chart, per-person). The verb also implicitly separates it from the mutate siblings create_chore/update_chore/delete_chore in the same namespace.

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?

"Use this to answer: ..." gives four concrete triggering scenarios, which is strong positive guidance for a retrieval tool. It stops short of the 5 level because it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative (e.g. get_week_overview for an aggregate view, or the update_chore/delete_chore path once a chore is identified).

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