Weekly Summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'Only reports observed work' and 'real activity' imply a read-only, evidence-based aggregation. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, output format details, or clarify what 'reviews' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the output and grouping, the second lists use cases, and the third adds a key constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid sense of the output structure (accomplishments grouped by status, with reviews and totals) and the data source constraint. It does not explain what 'reviews' entails, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 schema description covers 100% of the one parameter (days) with min/max and default, so the description adds limited extra value. Mentioning 'any N days' aligns with the parameter but does not introduce new syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 rolls up activity into accomplishments, grouped by work item as Shipped vs In progress, with reviews and totals. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like activity_digest or standup_draft, which focus on raw activity or daily updates.

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?

It explicitly names intended use cases: 'For 1:1s, weekly status, and self-reviews.' It also implies when not to use it via 'Only reports observed work,' indicating it is not for planned or speculative activity. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria beyond that.

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