get_chores

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 discloses that the tool returns chores with IDs, assignees, due dates, and completion status, and implies it is a read-only operation by discussing retrieval and filtering. It does not explicitly mention permissions or side effects, but for a list-getting tool, this is adequate.

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 brief definition, followed by clear example use cases, and a sentence. The description effectively uses the schema to document parameters, avoiding repetition and keeping the description concise without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the schema is fully described. The description provides example queries and highlights the need for IDs for subsequent mutations, covering key context. It doesn't detail return structure but the examples and schema suffice for agent invocation.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning the need for IDs for update/delete and gives example usage contexts, but does not explain parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides. The schema has good coverage, so the added value is somewhat limited.

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 retrieves chores and provides concrete example queries for its use. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_calendar_events and get_lists by specifying the domain (chores) and the output includes IDs needed for update/delete 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool, including example user intents, but does not explicitly exclude situations where other tools might be more appropriate. It implies usage for chore-related queries without explicit alternatives.

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