bu_haftaIdentify who to contact this week by surfacing due next steps, neglected close contacts, and overdue or upcoming promises.
Who to reach out to this week: next steps that are due, people neglected for their closeness level, overdue or upcoming promises.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the composition of the result set (due steps, neglect-by-closeness, promise deadlines), though it says nothing about ordering, limits, or freshness of the data.
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 sentence that front-loads the outcome ('who to reach out to this week') and then lists the three categories. No filler, no repetition of the title or name.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back. The only gap is the relationship to the neighboring `brifing` tool, which is left unaddressed.
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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document — the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed since the scope is fixed to 'this week'.
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?
Names a concrete resource (a weekly outreach list) and enumerates its triggers: due next steps, neglected people, overdue/upcoming promises. Clear enough to know what it produces, though it never states how it differs from the `brifing` sibling, which by name sounds adjacent.
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?
Usage is only implied by the content ('this week'), with no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like `brifing` or `son_gorusmeler`. An agent can infer the planning context but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed