get_weekly_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The term '聚合' (aggregation) hints at read-only aggregation, but this is ambiguous. The return format (output schema exists) is not described.

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 very short (4 characters in Chinese plus a period), which is concise. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is front-loaded but contains no actionable detail.

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 existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. The output schema could provide return structure, but the description doesn't mention what the output contains. The sibling 'stress' likely competes, but no differentiation is provided.

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 must clarify parameters. It does not explain the meanings of 'weeks' (number of weeks to aggregate) or 'end_date' (format, purpose). Defaults are provided in the schema but without context. The output schema exists but is not leveraged.

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 '每周压力聚合' (weekly stress aggregation) implies the tool retrieves aggregated stress data over a week. However, it's vague—it doesn't specify a clear verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' in the description, and it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'stress', which likely provides raw or daily stress data. The purpose is inferable but lacks specificity.

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 'stress', 'weekly_steps', or 'weekly_intensity_minutes'. There is no mention of prerequisites, date range limitations, or comparison to sibling tools. The agent must guess the tool's role from the name alone.

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