Apple Generate Weekly Briefing

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to justify safety. It does add useful context by naming the aggregated sources, but it does not disclose potential permission requirements, failure behavior, or what happens when sources are empty. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the artifact, and the data sources with no filler or repetition. It maximizes information density while remaining immediately readable.

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 read-only and idempotent annotations, plus the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a low-risk generation tool. However, the complete absence of parameter explanations and any usage guidance leaves notable gaps for an agent needing to customize the briefing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of days, mail_limit, or mail_query. An agent can guess from parameter names and defaults, but the description adds no clarification about how these parameters affect the briefing period, mail filtering, or result volume.

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 a specific verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('weekly Apple briefing'), and the data sources (upcoming events, reminders, Mail highlights). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling apple_generate_daily_briefing through the explicit 'weekly' scope.

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 implies use for creating weekly briefings but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives, such as apple_generate_daily_briefing. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named alternative tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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