get_logbook

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

Without annotations, the description accurately declares that the tool retrieves completed todos (read-only behavior). It mentions default time range and limit but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or the exact nature of the 'Logbook' view. The 'Get' prefix implies mutation is unlikely.

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 short and to the point, using a clear heading and bullet-like Args section. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured as a full sentence.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context about what 'Logbook' specifically refers to (e.g., finished tasks?), ordering, pagination, or how this fits among sibling tools. More context would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful details beyond the schema for both parameters: it explains that 'period' is a time period with examples ('3d', '1w', '2m', '1y') and defaults, and 'limit' is a maximum count with default. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Get completed todos from Logbook', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_today or get_recent by specifying 'completed' and 'Logbook'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate among the many 'get_' siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_todos, get_recent, or search_todos. The description gives defaults but does not explain the context that would lead an agent to choose get_logbook over other retrieval tools.

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