read_app_day

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape as a 'complete' (i.e., non-truncated) Markdown journal, which hints there is no pagination, but says nothing about missing days, permissions, or error behavior for an invalid app_id.

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 zero filler, and the resource description is front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. Slightly terse given the gaps elsewhere, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description still leaves app_id semantics and sibling routing unaddressed. It is thin for a tool in a crowded read-only namespace.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully specifies the day format (YYYY-MM-DD), but leaves app_id entirely undefined beyond its self-evident name.

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 ('Read') and a well-scoped resource ('app-specific daily Markdown journal'), which separates it from read_day_flow and day_sessions by its app dimension. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives mentioned, despite several overlapping read siblings (read_observation, read_review, read_day_flow, day_sessions). Usage is only implied by the word 'app-specific'.

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