get_weekly_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Summary' suggests a read-only operation, and the content types are listed, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, permissions, or how the week is resolved beyond what the schema already covers.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the three included data categories. It contains no redundant phrases, no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool is low complexity: one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description names the three output areas. It might have explicitly stated default week behavior or read-only confirmation, but those are minor gaps for an aggregate summary tool.

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 only parameter, week, is already fully documented in the schema: type string, format YYYY-MM-DD, Monday start date, and current-week default. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful semantic information to justify a score above baseline.

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?

Clear action verb 'get' and explicit resource 'weekly summary' with the exact content categories: agenda stats, work log entries, and commits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agenda, get_work_log, and get_commits, which each target only one of those data types.

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 intended use is implied: call this when a consolidated weekly summary is needed across agenda, work logs, and commits. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this tool over the individual sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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