Day structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the mode behavior and filter defaults without contradicting the annotations, but does not enrich the behavioral picture much further.

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 short clauses deliver the mode split, the user_id requirement, and the filter ranges with no filler. The critical information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 nine parameters and many sibling tools, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: 'compact' is never explained, and no guidance connects this tool to the alternative monitoring/summary tools. The strong schema and output schema offset this, but the definition is not fully complete on its own.

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 67%, and the description supplements the filter parameters by stating their console-compatible ranges and defaults, though the ranges already appear in the schema. It adds little semantic meaning for undocumented parameters such as compact.

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 identifies a specific resource ('day structure') and exposes two modes, list and detail, so an agent can infer what operations are available. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings, but the resource and mode names make the purpose clear.

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?

It provides useful internal guidance: detail requires user_id and filters match console ranges/defaults. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_activity_summary or get_timesheet.

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