raggy_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by revealing that 'since' accepts relative windows ('24h', '7d') in addition to ISO dates, which is not obvious from the schema and prevents misuse. However, it never states whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, or whether there are side effects — gaps that annotations would normally fill.

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?

Three sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose and examples are front-loaded, the critical parameter behavior is second, and the sibling routing closes the definition. Every sentence contributes distinct value.

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 query tool with no required parameters and 100% schema coverage, this is nearly complete: purpose, usage window, routing, and the most important parameter behavior are all stated. The remaining gaps are the absence of any output description (no output schema exists) and the unstated read-only nature, which is more significant because no annotations back up the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description exceeds that by documenting an accepted input format ('Pass since as a relative window (e.g. "24h", "7d") or ISO date') that the schema omits — the schema only says 'ISO date start'. This is a genuine expansion of meaning that helps an agent avoid passing invalid values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Use for time-based queries' — and reinforces it with concrete examples ('what did we work on today/yesterday/last week'). It explicitly names raggy_recall as the tool NOT to use, making the boundary between siblings unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule with examples ('today/yesterday/last week') and a direct exclusion: 'Do NOT use raggy_recall for temporal questions — this is the right tool.' This leaves no ambiguity about which sibling to select for temporal queries.

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