get_weekly_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior ('파일을 수정하지 않으며'), states that it does not perform status determinations or report creation, and enumerates the returned fields. This goes well beyond what would be inferred from the tool name alone.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. The main action is front-loaded, followed by return-value details and explicit non-behaviors. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or 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 tool is simple: one parameter, no siblings, and an output schema is present. The description covers the allowed input value, the return fields, and the side-effect profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 provides 0% coverage for the 'week' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the allowed values ('week-one 또는 week-two'), which gives an agent enough information to supply a valid argument. It does not specify case sensitivity or error behavior, but for a single enumerated-value parameter this is adequate.

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 action ('읽습니다' / reads) and a specific resource ('가상 팀 업무 기록' / virtual team work records), and narrows scope to 'week-one 또는 week-two'. It clearly distinguishes this as a read tool, and since there are no siblings, it fully identifies the tool's purpose.

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 gives clear context for using the tool: it is for reading work records only. It explicitly states what the tool does not do—modifying files or performing completion/progress/risk determinations or report writing—which serves as practical when-not guidance. There are no sibling tools or alternatives to compare, so this is sufficient.

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