list_days

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the ordering ('newest first') and that it lists available days, which is a read-only behavior. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., array of strings, objects) or whether it includes today/partial days. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The key information (list, available days, newest first) is front-loaded and 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 zero-parameter tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and ordering. However, because there is no output schema, the return structure is unspecified, which is a minor gap. The sibling tools (read_day, get_current_work) provide contextual inference about what 'days' means, but the description alone lacks explicit return details.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('available work log days'), plus a clear ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_day (which reads one day) and get_current_work (current state).

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?

Usage is implied: to see which work log days exist, call this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The self-explanatory name helps, but the description does not directly address alternatives.

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