get_random_anytime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a random subset and does not filter types, but it does not state that it is read-only, any side effects, or behavior on invalid inputs. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with five lines including a helpful note. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not provided for review), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks comparative context with 23 sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully enriched for an agent to confidently select among alternatives.

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 should add meaning beyond the schema. It restates the 'count' parameter as 'Number of random items to return. Defaults to 5.' which exactly matches the schema, providing no additional semantics like min/max or special behavior.

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 'Get a random sample of items from the Anytime list' with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'random sample from Anytime list'. It notes that the list can contain both todos and projects, distinguishing it from siblings like get_random_inbox and get_random_todos.

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 mentions that it returns a random subset without filtering types, which implies when to use (e.g., for a mixed sample). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparisons with alternative tools like get_random_inbox or get_random_todos.

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