get_user_weekly_track_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get a user's track chart', which is too vague. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, how the chart is sorted, what the maximum number of tracks is, or how the week is defined. This lack of detail misleads the agent about potential side effects or constraints.

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 concise with a single sentence that states the core functionality. There is no wasted wording. However, it is too brief to contain necessary behavioral or usage information, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 moderate complexity (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the chart output looks like, whether pagination is supported, what the default week is, or any limits. Without these details, an AI agent may generate incorrect calls.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional context to the parameters; it does not explain how the timestamps relate to the week or how the 'user' parameter defaults. Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'user's track chart for a given week'. It specifies the time scope ('for a given week (or the latest)'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_weekly_album_chart or get_user_weekly_artist_chart, which perform similar functions for different chart 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or other tools. There is no discussion of prerequisites, such as requiring the user to exist or the need for authentication. The description solely states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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