get_weekly_steps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only says 'aggregate' without explaining if it sums or averages, what timezone the end_date uses, what happens if end_date is null, or if data is read-only. For a health data tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely short (5 characters in Chinese), which is concise but at the cost of clarity. It front-loads the core idea but lacks structure. Every sentence—actually, every word—must earn its place, and this one does not provide enough context.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 2 optional parameters, the description is too sparse to be complete. For a tool with siblings like 'daily_steps' and 'steps_data', the agent needs to understand the weekly aggregation nuance. The current description leaves the agent guessing about return format, edge cases, and parameter dependencies.

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%, so the description should add meaning for both parameters. The description does not mention 'weeks' (number of weeks to aggregate) or 'end_date' (the boundary date) at all. The agent must infer their roles from names alone, risking misuse.

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 '每周步数聚合' translates to 'weekly steps aggregation', which clearly conveys the verb (aggregate) and resource (weekly steps). It helps distinguish from sibling tools like 'daily_steps' or 'steps_data', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate by scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'daily_steps' or 'steps_data'. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent gets no help choosing among the many step-related tools.

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