tp_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 full burden. It discloses the output metrics and end-of-week calculation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or edge cases (e.g., weeks without data). The name 'get' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and key outputs. There is no redundant or wasted text; every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only summary tool, the description covers the core output and the scope (a week). It does not explicitly state the aggregation semantics (e.g., all workouts in the week), but the context is largely complete given the simple schema. A perfect score would require more explicit behavior statements.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters clearly described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 tool's function: a combined view of workouts and fitness for a week, including specific metrics (TSS, duration, CTL/ATL/TSB). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_workouts or tp_get_fitness by emphasizing the combined summary nature.

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 description implies usage when a weekly aggregate of both workouts and fitness is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are given.

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