show_week_steps

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

The description is consistent with the readOnly and idempotent annotations, and it adds useful context about rendering an interactive MCP app and returning a short text summary. It does not mention side effects, but none are implied and the annotations already cover safety.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose, usage preference, and return format. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, the description is mostly complete. It explains the visual and summary outputs, though it does not explicitly mention that the range parameter can extend beyond 7 days; the schema covers this, so the gap is minor.

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 fully covers the parameter's enum values and default, so the baseline is met. The tool description adds no extra parameter guidance and even says 'past 7 days' while the range parameter supports 30d/90d/1y, which could be slightly misleading for non-default ranges.

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?

Clearly states the action ('show'), the data ('step counts vs daily goal'), the time scope ('past 7 days'), and the presentation format ('inline chart'). The purpose is immediately understandable and distinct from a plain text response.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this tool over a text-only description when the user asks about this topic. It does not enumerate sibling tools, but it gives a clear condition and preferred behavior, so the guidance is useful though not exhaustive.

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