cronos_riassunto_standup

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 describes the output (diary content with style instructions) and style constraints, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or that it does not modify data. Since the purpose implies reading, the lack of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap.

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: purpose, return value, style guidelines, usage triggers, and parameters. It is slightly longer than minimal but each section contributes meaningfully. The purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value adequately. The three optional parameters are covered with clear usage notes. The description is complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 the description adds value by specifying defaults (e.g., 'data' defaults to 'last working day') and clarifying the range parameters. This augments the schema descriptions.

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: 'Genera un riassunto discorsivo del diario per lo standup.' It specifies the resource (diary) and action (generating a discursive summary) for standup, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle diary entries, projects, or other operations.

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 lists common user queries that trigger this tool, such as 'Un riassunto per lo standup', 'Cosa dico allo standup?', 'Riassumi cosa ho fatto [data]', and 'Fammi un riassunto discorsivo'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance without needing to mention exclusions.

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