get_tasks_by_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and scopes the behavior to all logged tasks with optional tag filtering. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or ordering, but for a straightforward retrieval tool this is a moderate, adequate level of transparency.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action and date format are front-loaded, and the optional filter is stated in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter formats, and filtering semantics. It lacks an explicit pointer to the sibling date-range tool, but given the low complexity and structured output, it is otherwise complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it specifies the ISO date format for log_date and explains the optional tag filter and its meaning ('single tag/project'). Both parameters are meaningfully described beyond the bare schema, leaving little ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve all logged tasks') and a specific resource ('tasks for a given ISO date'), and the optional tag filter further narrows the scope. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_tasks_between by the single-date wording.

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 usage is implied by the description: use this when you need tasks for one specific date, with optional tag filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_tasks_between for date ranges) or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but not explicit.

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