Сводка на неделю

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld), and the description adds real behavior: partial-failure tolerance (a summary is still returned if a source like ЕЛК fails, with status in sources), source statuses ok/error/skipped with error text and warnings, and an explicit sort order for items. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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 lead sentence front-loads scope and time window before the sibling exclusion and the return details. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the field enumeration for items (kind, when, title, ...) is slightly heavy given an output schema exists.

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?

Covers the time window, included/excluded data sources, failure semantics, sort order, and the meaning of the sources field. Even though an output schema exists, the description's extra explanation of degraded-mode behavior leaves nothing an agent needs unstated.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics. Instead it documents the output shape (items fields, sources), which is value-add rather than repetition.

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?

States a concrete verb-scope and resource: a 7-day plan (today + 6) aggregating schedule, SmartLMS/ЕЛК deadlines, exams, and overdue work. It explicitly separates itself from my_today by excluding mail and notifications, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear positive trigger (next 7 days) and an explicit exclusion that redirects to my_today for mail/notifications. It doesn't mention how it relates to my_deadlines or the per-source LMS/ЕЛК tools, so routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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