get_daily_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a 'complete summary' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, what data scope it covers (e.g., all users or workspace-wide), or if there are any side effects like affecting usage counters.

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 very short and front-loads the main purpose. However, being a single line in Spanish with a trailing '[query]' (possibly stray), it could be more structured and professional. It is concise but at the cost of clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the output contains and any limitations. It lists categories but does not explain how the parameters interact (e.g., what happens when both date and period are provided), nor does it mention pagination or data freshness.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but does not enhance understanding. The description also mentions '[query]' which might refer to a query parameter not in schema, causing confusion.

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 it provides a daily summary of activity including conversations, messages, plugins, workflows, follow-ups, and tasks. It identifies the specific resource and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling summary tools like get_team_summary or get_conversations_summary, which could cause confusion.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative summary tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent has no context to choose this over related get_* tools.

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