get_weekly_stress

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states what the tool returns ('Returns weekly stress values') and does not explicitly mention whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Since it lacks any explicit behavioral disclosure, the transparency is minimal.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line summary followed by a clearly organized argument list. It avoids unnecessary detail and front-loads the core purpose. The structure is easy to parse and directly addresses the tool's functionality.

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 that the tool has an output schema (as indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain the return structure. It provides the essential information: what the tool does, the parameters, and their meanings. It is complete for the typical use case, though it lacks examples or edge-case handling, which are not strictly necessary here.

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 description enriches both parameters: 'end_date' is explained as 'End date in YYYY-MM-DD format' and 'weeks' as 'Number of weeks to fetch (default 4, max 52)'. This goes beyond the bare schema by providing format, defaults, and constraints, giving the agent meaningful semantic information. The coverage is complete for the two 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get weekly stress data aggregates' and elaborates that it 'Returns weekly stress values for the specified number of weeks ending at end_date.' This specifies the resource (stress data) and the scope (weekly aggregates), making the purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling stress tools like get_stress_summary or get_stress_data, but the wording is specific enough to suggest a distinct aggregate view.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, preferences, or contrasting scenarios with other stress-related tools. Without any usage direction, an agent cannot determine when this tool is the best choice.

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