cronos_leggi_diario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly identifies the tool as a read operation (non-destructive) and describes the return content (entries, projects, blockers). It lacks details about edge cases or permissions, but for a straightforward read tool, this is sufficient.

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 structured with bullet points for modes and parameters, front-loading key information. It is clear but slightly redundant (e.g., repeating 'Legge il contenuto del diario' in the return statement). A bit more conciseness could improve it.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and return content. It explains all parameter combinations and expected results. Minor omissions like pagination or empty state handling do not detract significantly.

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 basic descriptions, but the description adds significant value by grouping parameters into usage modes and explaining mutual exclusivity. This goes beyond schema semantics, making parameter relationships clear.

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 'Legge il contenuto del diario' (reads diary content), specifying both the verb (read) and the resource (diary). The name and description distinguish it from siblings like cronos_aggiungi_entry (write) and cronos_leggi_todo (read todo), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 enumerates four mutually exclusive usage modes (single date, date range, last N days, default today), providing explicit guidance on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., cronos_cerca for searching).

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