get_week_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns' clearly indicates a read operation, and the description transparently explains the projection condition ('if next week repeats this one') and that outputs are compared against the user's own baseline. It does not explicitly state side effects, but none are expected for a no-parameter read-only review.

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 front-loaded with the return value and contains no filler, but the first sentence is a long list of metrics that is somewhat dense. Both sentences earn their place; it is concise but slightly heavy in one breath.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return content and usage context on its own. It does so thoroughly, covering the comparison, projections, baseline reads, and the next race, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is the only relevant semantic content.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('this training week against the previous one'), then enumerates the exact metrics included. This distinguishes it from sibling per-metric getters like get_sleep_data, get_heart_rate_trends, and get_stress_levels.

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 explicitly states when to prefer this tool: when asked how the week or block is going, whether to back off, or what to do next week. It also contrasts it with reading individual metrics, giving an agent a clear decision rule for selection.

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