agenda_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the behavioral context of 'deterministic' and 'local', which is useful, but 'with freshness' is vague and does not disclose what freshness means or how it affects results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, compact sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No filler or redundant phrasing, and the core message 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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. The one gap is the ambiguous 'with freshness' clause, which could be interpreted as return freshness metadata or a guarantee of up-to-date data. Overall the agent can invoke it correctly without further information.

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, so there are no parameter details to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not add parameter information but does not need to since none exist.

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 ('Return') and names a clear resource ('Alfred's deterministic local task agenda'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like system_status or memory_search. The qualifiers 'deterministic' and 'local' further pin down what this tool uniquely provides.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that agenda_get is for reading Alfred's task agenda, but not when that is preferable to task_complete or availability_get.

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