get_all_day_eventsFetches all daily events for a given date, surfacing auto-detected activities that might not have been logged manually. Helps you see unrecorded activity.
Get all daily events including auto-detected activities that may not have been recorded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds nuance about auto-detected activities that may not have been recorded, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict them, and the added detail is relevant.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and distinguishes a key feature. No fluff or redundant phrasing.
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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does. The inclusion of auto-detected activities is a valuable additional detail. While it doesn't describe return format, that's not required given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.
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 description covers the single 'date' parameter fully (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 all daily events, including auto-detected activities not explicitly recorded. This distinguishes it from other getters like 'get_all_day_stress' or 'get_body_battery_events' that focus on specific metrics, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 makes it clear when to use this tool—when you need all daily events, especially those auto-detected. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the sibling context, the intended use is well-understood.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.