Weekly Checkin

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly states the tool returns factual numbers, not coaching, and advises the agent to lead with the most important items — a behavioral trait of how to present output. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the context strongly implies it.

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?

Four concise sentences: the opening states the core functionality, the second details what's included, the third clarifies the split between factual data and coaching, and the fourth gives presentation guidance. Each sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description focuses on the tool's role and output usage. It tells the agent what to expect and how to prioritize, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The only missing element is an explicit statement that no data is modified, which is not critical for this aggregation tool.

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 input schema documents both parameters (lookahead_days, stale_after_days) with descriptions and defaults, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about these parameters. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 opens with a clear purpose: 'Everything that needs attention this week, in one call.' It enumerates the types of content (overdue items, closing deadlines, quiet contacts, untouched target firms, and the user's cycle position), making it easy to distinguish from more specific sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'generate,' but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'This is the habit' suggests a recurring weekly context, implying when this tool should be used. However, there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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