weekly_rollup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the summary is server-generated, time-bound, and optionally scoped. It does not specify side effects or read-only nature, but 'summary' implies no mutation. Lacks details on caching or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences pack purpose, parameters, and prerequisite with no waste. Information is front-loaded.

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, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, time range, scoping, and authentication. It could mention what kind of activities are summarized, but overall is adequate for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the single optional parameter 'project' as a scoping filter. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could define 'project' more precisely.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a server-generated activity summary for the trailing seven days with optional project scoping. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like recall_decisions or check_hyperfocus.

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?

Description mentions the prerequisite of a signed-in account with connected storage, which helps the agent know when the tool is available. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the nature of a weekly summary vs. specific checks is implied.

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