Get Weekly Review

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral details: effect is read, human approval not required, and specific failure handling steps (e.g., login_required → login). No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a structured format with headings. While it is somewhat lengthy due to comprehensive failure handling, every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, failure modes, and post-action steps without redundancy. No significant gaps.

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% and fully documents the projectId parameter with default behavior and error conditions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline.

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 reads the deterministic current weekly review and returns its Web review handoff URL. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like review_pending or get_project_sync_status.

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 explicitly provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, including alternatives when a narrower tool matches intent or when project scope is unresolved. It also outlines prerequisites and failure handling, giving comprehensive guidance.

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