get_weekly_summary

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

The description discloses caps on weeks (12), default values for end_date, and enumerates valid metric values. As no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it sufficiently describes the non-destructive read behavior and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and behavior. It covers metric options, weeks cap, and date format. Minor gaps like error handling for invalid metrics are omitted, but overall it's complete for a simple aggregation tool.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description adds meaning for all 3 parameters: it explains metric values (steps, stress, intensity_minutes), weeks cap (12), and end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD) with default. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 provides 'weekly aggregates for a single metric.' It lists the allowed metrics (steps, stress, intensity_minutes), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_stress or get_steps_and_calories, which might also provide aggregate data.

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 provides context for when to use: for weekly aggregations of available metrics. It implies not for daily or multi-metric summaries. But it lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to siblings.

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