weekly_retro_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope by listing the returned data categories, but says nothing about return format, aggregation behavior, or how missing data is handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the tool's purpose and then enumerates contents. It is dense but earns its length; only the run-on list is slightly heavy.

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 read-only aggregate tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data is bundled, so the agent needn't have return values explained. Gaps remain around the week_start format and the default's precise semantics, which matter for correct invocation.

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?

With 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries some burden and does add value by specifying the default ('last completed week'). However, it never explains the expected format of week_start (ISO date, week number, label), leaving the one parameter partially ambiguous.

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 states a clear resource (weekly retro data bundle) and enumerates its contents (graded decisions, predictions, calibrations, signal grades), so an agent knows what comes back. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it aggregates (grade_decisions, prediction_calibration, projection_calibration, signal_grades), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Everything the weekly retro needs' implies the usage context (assembling a weekly retro), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternatives named against the individual sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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