read_chat_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (one page, next_cursor loop, data.page.done), which is useful. However, it does not reveal other behavioral traits such as timezone semantics, filtering by talker, or the effect of 'compact'. The pagination disclosure is a positive but incomplete transparency.

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 very concise—two sentences with no filler. The key action is front-loaded ('Read one page...'), and the pagination instruction is direct. Every word 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?

For a tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives a useful pagination pattern but omits essential context about parameter semantics, period calculation, filtering, and response shape. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still fails to equip the agent with enough decision-making information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 8 undocumented parameters. It only hints at 'day/natural period' (relating to period) and 'one page' (relating to limit/cursor), but does not explain chat, talker, compact, timezone, or include_summary_template. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema default values.

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 states a specific action: 'Read one page for a day/natural period', with the resource implied by the tool name (chat). It distinguishes from siblings like read_chat_range by emphasizing 'one page' and 'day/natural period' rather than a range or multiple chats. However, it does not explicitly name the resource (messages) or fully clarify the 'natural period' concept.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'loop with next_cursor until data.page.done.' This tells the caller how to paginate. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_chat_range or read_multiple_chats_day, and lacks any exclusion criteria.

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