get_context_week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return categories and the read-only nature implied by 'Get.' However, it does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, prerequisites, or how missing/empty week data is handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, returned content, usage guidance, alternative tool, and parameter documentation all appear in a logical order without filler. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the parameter semantics, the tool's purpose, and the key alternative. No critical information needed to select or call this tool correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting the week parameter's accepted values ('current', 'last', YYYY-Wxx) and the None default. This adds essential meaning that the sparse schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get task-centric activity context for a specific week.' It then enumerates the returned content (task lists, per-day focus breakdown, project log entries), making the tool's scope and output clear. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_activity_report, which is explicitly described as aggregate.

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 states what the tool is for ('understand what happened at the task level during a week') and explicitly directs users to get_activity_report when they need aggregate metrics instead. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, which is especially valuable given the large sibling tool set.

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