event_weekly_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the output is Markdown, default counts match scheduled push, and that the 'production_only' parameter excludes test networks based on configuration (ZABBIX_TEST_NETWORKS). This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't detail the full report structure or any side effects, but for a report generation tool, this is adequate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key options. It wastes no words, and every clause adds useful information. This is an example of efficient, high-value description.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, all optional) and the presence of a rich output schema, the description covers the purpose, default behavior, and main options. It doesn't explain each parameter in detail, but the schema does, and the description focuses on the high-level context. A minor gap is not mentioning the report's time period explicitly in the description, but the name and default cover that. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema documents each parameter's meaning and defaults. The description adds value by contextualizing the purpose of these parameters (e.g., chapter overrides and production-only filtering) and linking to the default behavior. This goes beyond the schema by explaining why these parameters exist.

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 generates a weekly operations report in Markdown for Monday to Sunday, with explicit mention of default display counts matching the scheduled push and options for chapter overrides and production-only filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like event_daily_report and event_monthly_report by specifying the weekly scope and output format.

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 usage for generating weekly reports and mentions the default behavior and overrides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus daily or monthly reports. However, the weekly name and default 'last_week' strongly imply the intended use case, and the siblings are self-explanatory, so context is clear without explicit exclusions.

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