weekly_review

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the report content (tasks, decisions, next steps) and the return structure (Dict with success and data). Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description provides additional context on output.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is relevant, though the Args and Returns sections could be slightly more integrated.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and does not mention any prerequisites or edge cases, which would improve completeness.

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 description lists the two parameters (project_name, branch_name) and their exact-match filtering, but this information is already present in the input schema with the same details. Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level params object, but properties are well-described. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema.

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: generating a weekly project report summarizing completed tasks, key decisions, and next steps. It uses a specific verb ('生成' generate) and resource ('周报' report), differentiating it from siblings like add_decision or get_summary_by_id.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the description alone.

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