gerent365_kiosko_punch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the optional GPS coordinates and the conditional managerCode for late punches, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, success/failure behavior, or return values, leaving transparency incomplete.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and adds only essential detail, with no redundant information.

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 description is adequate for basic understanding with a well-documented schema, but it lacks key context: no output schema exists, and the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., employee must exist). This leaves gaps for a mutation tool of moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that GPS coordinates are optional and that managerCode may be required specifically for late punches, which enriches the schema's property descriptions.

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 registers a time punch (fichaje) at the kiosk, enumerating the types (entrada, salida, descanso). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attendance or get_last_punch, which are read-only.

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 establishes clear usage context: this tool is for recording punches at the kiosk. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for viewing/validating punches, so it falls short of a 5.

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