get_my_day

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, the description discloses real behavioral traits: data is read from the local cache, Graph API cannot supply it, and tasks flagged 未同步 exist only locally and cannot be modified by other tools. That caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious state an agent needs. It does not cover pagination, empty-result behavior, or the fact that the cached view may be stale.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what is read and from where, then the unsynced caveat. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers source, read-only nature, and the key limitation about unsynced tasks. Minor gaps remain: no indication of the return shape/ordering or what happens when My Day is empty.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (date, YYYY-MM-DD, default today) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra date semantics (e.g., whether a future date is valid, or timezone behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and a specific resource ("我的一天"/My Day tasks) and even names the backing data source (本机缓存, not Graph API). It never names or distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling get_today_tasks, so an agent must infer which of the two to pick.

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 parenthetical "Graph API 不提供此数据" implies this is the only route to My Day data, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as get_today_tasks or get_today_tasks vs list_tasks, so the agent is left to infer.

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