Agenda view

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 key behavioral traits: inclusion of overdue open items when range covers today, default range, and exclusion of unscheduled entries. It does not mention return format or ordering, but for a read-only query tool this is reasonably transparent.

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, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical exclusion and alternative. Every sentence 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 simple query tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, default, and alternative. It lacks a description of the return format, but the inclusion rules and exclusions are clearly specified, making it adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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 100% and all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no elaboration on date format or include_done behavior). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 provides an org-agenda style view, specifies the inclusion criteria (scheduled or due within a date range, plus overdue open items when range covers today), and explicitly distinguishes it from org_list_todos by excluding entries without SCHEDULED or DEADLINE. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (org_list_todos) and the condition that selects it: entries without SCHEDULED or DEADLINE. Also states the default range (today only), giving the agent clear context for when to invoke this tool versus siblings.

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