due_notes

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only behavior: it reads notes from a specified folder, parses a date format, and compares with the current date. It does not mention side effects, which are absent, and describes the logic clearly.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., list of note titles, paths, or full content). It also lacks details about error handling or edge cases like empty folders.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about defaults and the meaning of include_upcoming, but does not provide significant extra value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to review scheduled notes and return only those due today. It specifies the mechanism (reading a date marker from each note) and distinguishes it from manual checking or other tools like read_note.

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 indicates the tool is meant for session startup checks ('comprobación de arranque de sesión'), replacing manual per-note inspection. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or compare to siblings like search_notes.

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