weekly_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by listing output data, but does not explicitly state safety (non-destructive), latency, or authentication needs. The behavioral traits are moderately clear for a simple aggregation tool.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's output. It is front-loaded with 'Aggregated weekly summary' and lists specifics. No wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output categories but omits details like the time range (e.g., current week?) and return structure. It provides adequate context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose but lacks completeness in describing the exact output format.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema (which is empty), but that is acceptable as no parameters exist.

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 tool provides an aggregated weekly summary with specific categories (submitted/graded counts, deadlines, overdue, progress). It lacks an explicit verb but is descriptive enough. It distinguishes from siblings like daily_briefing and semester_dashboard through the 'weekly' scope.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., daily_briefing, get_upcoming_deadlines). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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