journal_get_weekly_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly identifies this as a read-only get operation (via 'Get') and describes the content returned, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites, rate limits, or whether the review is computed on demand versus stored. It provides minimal context beyond what the name already implies.

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 convey the purpose and the key parameter hint without waste. No redundant or verbose wording.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter and no output schema. The description explains the high-level output (summary of activity, emotional trends, insights) but does not specify the output format or any edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it is adequate though not exhaustive.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the 'week' parameter. The description's 'Use "latest" to get the most recent review' restates what the schema already says, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'weekly review' and explicitly mentions what it summarizes (journaling activity, emotional trends, insights), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like journal_get_entry or journal_get_writing_style.

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 user wants an aggregated weekly summary rather than individual entries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The only usage hint given is the 'latest' parameter value, which is about parameter selection rather than tool selection.

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