taste_weekly_recap

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

With no annotations provided, the explicit 'Read-only, no auth' disclosure is genuinely valuable and carries the safety burden — it tells the agent this is a safe read operation requiring no credentials. However, it stops there: no mention of failure modes (invalid/private profile, empty window, rate limits) or how the stats.fm API is accessed.

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 entire description is one 18-word sentence: deliverable and content list front-loaded, safety note appended, zero filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

For a simple read-only report tool the core is covered: deliverable, contents, auth profile, and all params are documented. But 'novelty share' is unexplained domain jargon, there is no output schema to define return shape, and edge cases (empty window, invalid or private user) are unaddressed.

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 100%: days (window, default 7), statsfm_user (ID or username, public, no auth), and response_format (concise/detailed/json meanings) are all documented in the schema. Per the baseline rule, the description need not add param detail, and it doesn't — it provides no syntax or format information beyond the schema.

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 names a specific deliverable — a 'Week-in-review brief' — and enumerates its contents (stream count, top artists/tracks, busiest day, novelty share), so an agent knows precisely what output to expect. The weekly framing distinguishes it from siblings like taste_daily_brief and week_in_review_playlist, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'Week-in-review' label combined with the days parameter defaulting to 7 implies a weekly recap use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this over the many sibling recap tools (taste_daily_brief, listening_recap_brief, statsfm_recaps, weekly_rotation_report). No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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