toggl_weekly_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a report but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, modifies data, or what the output looks like (e.g., format details beyond the schema). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a report-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication needs, output structure, error handling, or how it differs from siblings. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully grasp the tool's behavior and usage context.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('week_offset' and 'format'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Generate a weekly report with daily breakdown and project summaries.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('weekly report') with details about content ('daily breakdown and project summaries'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggl_daily_report' or 'toggl_project_summary' beyond the weekly scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'toggl_daily_report' for daily reports or 'toggl_project_summary' for project-focused summaries, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage.

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