get_logbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about default time periods and limits, which helps understand the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'completed' entails (e.g., status criteria). The description compensates partially but leaves gaps for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get completed todos from Logbook, defaults to last 7 days'), followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the defaults into the initial sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and defaults, which covers the essentials for a read operation. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, and the parameter documentation compensates for the 0% schema coverage. Minor gaps remain in behavioral details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document parameters. It successfully adds meaning by explaining both parameters: 'period' as a time period with examples (e.g., '3d', '1w') and defaults, and 'limit' as maximum entries with defaults. This covers all 2 parameters adequately, though it could provide more detail on format constraints (e.g., valid period strings).

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get completed todos from Logbook'. It specifies the resource (completed todos) and the source (Logbook), making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_todos' or 'get_recent', which likely also retrieve todo-related data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 implies usage by stating it 'defaults to last 7 days', suggesting it's for retrieving recent completed todos. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_todos' or 'get_recent', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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