day_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and pagination is hinted at, but there is no disclosure of permissions, result volume, rate limits, or what 'summaries and source evidence' actually contain. The pagination hint even references a token (next_offset) that does not appear in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point because the second sentence conveys inaccurate information about pagination rather than earning 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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, so the description must do all the work for a paginated, day-scoped retrieval tool. It leaves parameter formats, pagination mechanics, and result shape unspecified, which is inadequate for this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description only obliquely implies the required 'day' input and mentions pagination, but never explains the format of 'day', the meaning of limit, or how offset works, and the pagination token it names is not a real parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read chronological app/window sessions, with summaries and source evidence.' An agent knows it retrieves session data for a day, but the description never distinguishes this from close siblings like read_app_day, read_day_flow, or recent_activity, so it earns a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 only usage guidance is 'Use next_offset for the next page', which is not even a parameter of this tool (the schema exposes limit/offset). No indication of when to prefer this over read_app_day or read_day_flow, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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