weekly_recap

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

No annotations exist and there is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden; it does discharge part of that by listing the returned metrics precisely. It never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor anything about the time window definition (week start) or per-user scoping, which leaves real behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable and then a compact parenthetical inventory of fields; two sentences, no filler. Slightly dense but every clause maps to actual returned data.

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 no output schema, the field-by-field listing of what comes back is exactly the compensating detail an agent needs, and the 'write it yourself' note clarifies the contract. Missing only scoping semantics and week-boundary definition.

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 single user_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it or explains that it defaults to "default"/the current user. For a one-param tool that omission is the only semantic gap available, and it is left open in both schema and prose.

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 enumerates the concrete payload (week-over-week questions/accuracy/XP/active days, topic deltas, improved/weakest areas, streak, reviews mastered), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like get_progress or get_coverage, so the boundary must be inferred from the returned fields.

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?

"Write the recap yourself" usefully signals this is a data-fetch, not a narrative generator, which tells the agent how to consume the result. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over get_progress or get_coverage, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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