weekly_review

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the full comparison structure (last week and previous 28 days), best/worst nights, fixed-rule highlights, and the important missing-data behavior: unrecorded fields say 'not recorded' and must not be treated as zero. It also adds a safety boundary that results are informational, not medical advice.

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 tool's scope and is dense but purposeful. The only minor inefficiency is the unexplained 'I5.' prefix and the long single-paragraph structure, but most sentences earn their place by clarifying behavior or safety.

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, read-only/idempotent annotations, and single optional parameter, the description is complete: it covers data sources, comparison windows, missing-data handling, and the informational-use caveat. An agent can call it correctly without needing to infer much.

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 coverage is 100%, so the week_of parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining the default behavior (this week so far) and when to pass week_of versus leaving it empty.

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 composite report: weekly review across training, sleep, HRV, resting heart rate, stress, and Body Battery for a Monday-to-Sunday week, with comparisons and highlights. This is clearly distinguishable from granular sibling tools like get_sleep or get_hrv because it names the aggregate weekly scope and rule-based highlights.

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 says to use this for 'weekly review' or 'how was my week' questions, and gives precise guidance for the optional week_of parameter: call once with no week_of for a general review, and pass week_of only when the user names a week such as 'last week'.

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