Root of the day

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a safe read. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the content is the same for every user on a given day, i.e. deterministic, date-scoped and non-personalized. It omits edge behavior (what is returned if no root is scheduled, whether it rolls over at midnight in a specific timezone) and any hint at the return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the reason it exists. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description should make the return value concrete — but 'root or idea' leaves it unclear whether the caller gets an etymology root word, a discussion prompt, or a lesson seed, which matters given siblings like break_down_word and explain. The shared-daily-content behavior is well covered, but the payload itself is underspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 resource — today's root/idea — with clear temporal scoping ('today's') and identifies the product context ('Skepsis'). It is easy to tell apart from the sibling tools (list_course, start_lesson, answer, review, explain, break_down_word, progress), though it never explicitly names or contrasts them. The residual ambiguity between 'root' and 'idea' keeps it short of a 5.

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 standup framing implies when the tool is useful (shared team discussion), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead when...' guidance. No prerequisites, no indication of what to do with the result. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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