Meu dia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context: the tool aggregates personal tasks due today, overdue items, estimated time total, and undated backlog. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the data scope and what the user will see.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('what I have today') and then enumerating the contents. Every sentence earns its place: the first lists the data points, the second clarifies the personal scope and gives a usage recommendation. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value. It does so thoroughly: due today, overdue, estimated time, and undated backlog. The scope boundary ('only mine') and the 'start here' guidance make the tool's place in the workflow clear, especially relative to the sibling tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't try to; it focuses on the output contents instead.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('O que EU tenho para hoje') and clearly defines the resource: a personal daily brief. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the personal scope ('Traz só o que é meu') and enumerates exactly what it includes (due today, overdue, estimated time, undated backlog). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Comece o dia por aqui' (start the day here), establishing when to use it. It also gives a clear exclusion: tasks assigned to another person are not part of this view ('tarefa atribuída a outra pessoa é o dia dela'), though it does not name an alternative tool. This is clear context without explicit sibling references.

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