get_agenda

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns three categories of agenda items, which is useful context beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not mention authentication or rate limits, and gives no indication of what happens if the week field is malformed. For a simple getter this is acceptable, but it doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately elaborates with the three key content areas. Every word contributes to understanding. There is no redundancy or filler, making it a model of concise, effective documentation.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is relatively complete. It explains what the agenda contains and thus what the caller should expect. The one gap is that it doesn't mention the 'week' parameter at all, though this is covered by the schema. For a simple getter, this level of completeness suffices.

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 schema description covers the 'week' parameter thoroughly but leaves 'type' undocumented. The tool description compensates by listing 'focus items, coming up, and expected deliverables', which exactly correspond to the enum values of 'type'. This adds meaningful semantic meaning to the undocumented parameter and helps an agent populate the argument correctly. Only one parameter needed compensation, and the description delivered on that.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'weekly agenda', enumerating the three content categories (focus items, coming up, expected deliverables) that map directly to the schema's enum values. This gives a precise sense of what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_weekly_summary, so it doesn't fully eliminate ambiguity.

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 its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, no 'use this for X, use that for Y' routing, and no exclusions. An agent is left to infer that this is the general getter for weekly agenda data, but without explicit comparison to get_weekly_summary or others, the decision remains underspecified.

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