get_training_week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful behavior—the ISO Monday-to-Sunday week boundary rule—but omits important context such as what happens when date is null (the default), what data is summarized, and whether this is a read-only operation.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the key scoping rule. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple—one optional parameter and an output schema—so the description is nearly sufficient. The missing null-default behavior and date format ambiguity are material enough to prevent full completeness, but the core invocation context is clear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that date anchors the week being summarized, but it does not explain the expected date format or the behavior when null is passed, even though null is the schema default. This leaves a meaningful gap.

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 specific action ('Summarize') on a clearly defined resource: the ISO Monday-to-Sunday week containing the given date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target daily summaries, individual activities, or specific metrics. 'Summarize' remains somewhat generic about what the summary contains, so it is not a 5.

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 implies it should be used when a weekly training summary for a date's week is needed, especially by clarifying ISO week boundaries. However, it provides no explicit exclusions, alternatives, or guidance on when another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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