get_weekly_steps

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns weekly step totals and describes the parameters, making the core operation clear. However, it does not mention timezone handling, inclusive/exclusive date boundaries, behavior when data is unavailable, or other potential edge cases.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact Args section. There is slight redundancy between the first line and the second sentence, but no unnecessary filler.

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?

The core function and parameters are covered, and an output schema exists so return structure details are not required. However, given the large set of closely related siblings, the description lacks guidance on when to select this tool over get_daily_steps or get_steps_data, and it omits behavioral edge 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by documenting end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the weeks default and maximum (4, 52). It adds a constraint ('max 52') not present in the schema and clarifies the date format, which is genuinely useful.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weekly step data aggregates') and clearly explains the return value: weekly step totals for the requested number of weeks ending at end_date. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_daily_steps or get_steps_data.

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 alternatives such as get_daily_steps, get_steps_data, or get_weekly_stress. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context signals to help an agent choose this over related tools.

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