Weeek context

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: it is a prerequisite step, it prints working conventions, and the agent is told to follow those conventions when creating, moving or commenting on tasks. It also discloses the no-config fallback behavior, which the annotations do not.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value instruction (call this first), then progressively less critical detail. Three dense sentences with no filler, though the config-contents list makes the middle sentence long enough to skim.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: identity, workspace, .weeek.json boards/columns/aliases/conventions, members, tags, plus the degraded no-config output. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines `project` as an optional name-or-id override, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the observable effect of that parameter ('see the boards and columns of any project'), giving meaning beyond the field definition.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (shows identity, workspace, project config, members, tags) and positions itself as the bootstrap/preflight tool among the weeek_* siblings. An agent can distinguish it from all ten siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit sequencing instruction ('Call this first, before any other weeek_* tool'), plus an explicit alternative branch: without .weeek.json it lists projects, and passing `project` inspects a specific project. When-to-use and the fallback path are both stated, not implied.

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