weekly_digest

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('narrative summary string plus structured deltas'), the input prerequisites (14 days history), and tier-based limitations. It also reveals the intended consumption style ('read aloud or send'), indicating a non-imperative report generation. It does not explicitly state that no data is mutated, but the read-generation nature is implied by the wording.

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 paragraphs: a clear purpose statement, a detailed list of metrics and return type, and a short note on tier constraints. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (narrative summary plus structured deltas), and constraints (14-day history, Pro vs Free). It could slightly elaborate on the exact shape of 'structured deltas', but it is sufficiently complete for an AI to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly offers none.

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 specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('a human-readable weekly digest'), and explicitly states its intended use ('Claude can read aloud or send'). It further clarifies scope by listing the exact metrics compared (Tempo score, capacity, load, RpRH, meeting hours, deep work hours, revenue), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tempo_score (single metric) or get_history (raw data dump).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Week-over-week needs 14 days of history' and explains Pro vs Free tier behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state 'when not to use', which would be even stronger guidance given the array of sibling tools.

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