weezevent_guide

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the subject matter (screens and sign-in link) and that it is a prerequisite step. It does not say whether the guidance is static text, whether it takes any action, what shape the response takes, or whether calling it has side effects — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single compact sentence plus a directive — no wasted wording. The most actionable instruction ('Call this first') is placed last rather than front-loaded, which slightly weakens the structure.

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 one-optional-parameter orientation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what comes back and how the returned guidance should be applied. It covers scope and ordering adequately but leaves the response behavior undefined.

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% and the single optional 'task' parameter is already documented in the schema as free-form intent. The description only obliquely hints at what kind of task phrasing is appropriate (estimates, jobs, crew assignments), so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (Weezevent guidance covering screens and the sign-in link) and the job domains it addresses (estimates, jobs, crew assignments). It distinguishes itself from the UI-action siblings (click/open/read/type) by framing itself as orientation material rather than an action, though it never says explicitly 'this returns documentation' — the reader must infer it is a guide.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit ordering directive that tells the agent when to use it relative to all the sibling action tools. It does not give a when-not condition or say what to do on subsequent calls, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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