get_weekly_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the returned metrics but does not describe side effects (presumably none), data freshness, authentication requirements, or any limitations. For a read-only tool, basic transparency about its idempotent nature is missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential return metrics. However, it could be improved by noting the output format (e.g., array of weekly objects) or units. Still, for a straightforward stat retrieval, it is largely complete.

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 covers the single parameter 'weeks' with a description and default, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics but does clarify what metrics are returned, which indirectly contextualizes the parameter. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves weekly training statistics for distance, time, and training load. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_training_load_analysis (which focuses on load exclusively) and get_activity_details (which is per-activity). The verb is implied (retrieve), and the resource is well-defined.

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_weekly_training_plan, get_training_load_analysis), explicit usage context would help the agent decide. The description offers no such guidance.

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