onenote_weekly_review

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

Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by explicitly confirming 'This is read-only and does not create a page.' This reassures the agent about side effects beyond the generic read-only hint, which is useful for a tool that might otherwise be assumed to create deliverables.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the read-only nature. No filler or redundant phrasing, making it compact and easy to parse.

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 read-only aggregation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it produces and confirms no side effects. It could mention the return format or how the source pack is structured, but the essential operational context is present given the annotations and schema.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (start_id and max_pages) with detailed descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, which aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage where the description need not repeat schema details.

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 builds a weekly-review source pack from recent/scoped notes, naming the included content types (key points, decisions, risks, incomplete action items). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like onenote_search or onenote_get_page, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies a weekly-review use case and notes the tool is read-only, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as onenote_extract_insights or onenote_knowledge_digest. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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