get_streak

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it clarifies what qualifies as a day ('fully logged days'), what is returned ('current run' and 'record'), and how the optional date is interpreted ('count back from', 'defaults to today'). This is useful context that the annotations do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core output, and the second defines the parameter. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 a single optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics well. The main gap is that it does not specify timezone handling or the exact rule for what makes a day 'fully logged', but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 schema provides only a generic 'Date' property with a null default and 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format and explaining that the date is the point to count back from and defaults to today. This gives the single parameter meaningful semantics.

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 names the resource ('diary logging streaks') and the two outputs ('current run of fully logged days, and the record'), which makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', so it falls just short of a 5, but it is still precise and distinct from sibling tools.

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 implies that this tool should be used when the caller needs streak information for diary logging, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use it. No alternative tools for streaks exist among the siblings, so the lack of exclusions is not a major issue, but explicit guidance is still absent.

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