Get Weekly Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not explain what 'this week' means (calendar week vs rolling 7 days), timezone handling, report scope, or whether any aggregation occurs. A no-parameter report tool needs at least a definition of its time window.

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 short sentence, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded for a no-parameter tool. It sacrifices some behavioral detail, but it is not padded or redundant.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate for invoking the tool. However, it leaves the definition of 'weekly' ambiguous and provides no context for choosing it over related reporting/stats siblings, so an agent may mis-select it.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 states a clear verb ('获取' / get) and a specific resource ('本周错误报告' / this week's error report). It is distinguishable from get_stats and get_error_trends by the weekly-report scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_error_trends, get_stats, or get_case. The only implicit hint is the word 'weekly' in the title; there are no exclusions, preconditions, or alternatives mentioned.

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