get_activities_fordate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core function; it does not mention any behavioral traits such as date format expectations, timezone handling, pagination, sorting, limits, or error behaviors. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence—and front-loads the core purpose. Every word is functional, with no filler. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting important details; it could be restructured to include more context while remaining concise.

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 that the tool has only one parameter and outputs a list (output schema exists but is not shown), the description should still cover key details like date format, what constitutes an activity, and any limitations. The current description is too sparse to support reliable agent decisions, especially compared to sibling tools with richer descriptions.

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 0% (the 'date' parameter has no description in the schema). The description adds basic meaning by specifying that the date parameter is for selecting which day's activities to list. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD), default value (none, not required), or constraints. This partial compensation raises the score to 3 but is not fully informative.

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 '指定某一天的活动中列表' clearly indicates the tool retrieves a list of activities for a specified day. The verb is implied (list/get) and the resource (activities) and scope (a specific date) are identifiable, distinguishing it from siblings like 'activities' (which may list all activities without date filtering) and 'get_activity' (single activity). However, the phrasing is slightly ambiguous and lacks specificity about what 'activities' includes.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the tool name and description mentioning 'for date', implying it should be used to filter activities by date. Among many activity-related siblings (e.g., 'activities', 'count_activities', 'get_activity'), there is no mention of trade-offs or prerequisites.

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