get_day_material

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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive behavior; the description adds that results are bounded, subject to current exclusions, and that gaps remain unknown. This is meaningful context beyond the structured annotations and sets accurate expectations about incompleteness.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the key caveat about exclusions and unknown gaps is delivered compactly in the second sentence.

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 read-only list-type tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, date scoping, exclusion behavior, and a key output limitation. It still leaves 'current exclusions' undefined and does not describe the result shape or pagination semantics clearly, so it is adequate but has gaps.

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%, and the description only partially compensates: it connects 'local calendar day' to date/timezone and 'report or diary' to purpose. It does not clarify limit or cursor beyond their titles, leaving pagination semantics mostly inferred.

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 ('Get'), resource ('bounded screen observations'), and scope ('specified local calendar day'), plus a clear intended use ('draft a report or diary'). The bounded/day framing distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like search_screen_history and get_recent_activity without needing to open the schema.

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?

Provides a clear use context ('to draft a report or diary') and hints at filtering behavior ('Applies current exclusions'), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. It leaves sibling routing to inference rather than spelling out the choice.

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