collect_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose key traits: this is a raw, unfiltered, non-summarized read that buckets sessions by WORK_HOURS vs SCHOOL_HOURS and includes user messages. It stops short of covering permissions, empty-week behavior, or data volume.

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?

Three tight sentences: source + parameter format first, then the per-day return shape, then the caller's responsibility. Nothing redundant and the most important constraint (raw/unfiltered) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does describe the returned fields and time-window grouping, so an agent knows what comes back. Minor gaps remain around error/empty cases and result size, but the core contract is complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'week' property is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. The inline example '2026-W39' establishes the required ISO-week string format, which is exactly the missing semantic.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (collect raw data for one ISO week) and precisely enumerates the return payload per weekday. The 'ungefiltert und unzusammengefasst' framing implicitly but clearly separates it from a summarizing/filling sibling like fill_week.

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?

It tells the caller what post-processing is expected ('Privates aussortieren und Stichpunkte machen'), which implies how the tool is meant to be used, but never states when to pick this over fill_week or any preconditions (e.g., session DB availability, date validity).

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