cronos_lista_mese

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregated data with daily flags and entry counts, and lists which artifacts are checked. This is transparent for a read-only reporting tool, though it could explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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 well-structured with a clear progression: output overview, details, use case, parameters, return. It is slightly wordy (7 sentences) but every part adds value.

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 tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (summary + daily details with flags). It covers the essential aspects, though could mention if there are limits or pagination.

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?

Both parameters (mese, anno) are documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description repeats the defaults but adds no additional semantic nuance, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists the diary status for each day of a month, providing a monthly view with artifact presence and entry counts. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like cronos_leggi_diario (single day) and cronos_settimana (weekly).

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 explicitly positions the tool as a 'quick glance' dashboard for the month, indicating when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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