gerent365_kiosko_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates and returns status/next action, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency, not a complete disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the output. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains the return value (status and next action) but not the full structure. The tool has only two optional parameters and is relatively simple, so the description is adequate but leaves gaps about error handling, whether it mutates data, and the exact response format. This makes it minimally viable.

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 input schema already has full coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters (pin and kioskCode). The description only reiterates 'kioskCode + pin' without adding additional meaning or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Valida un empleado en el kiosko'), the resource (employee at kiosk), the required inputs (kioskCode + pin), and the output (status and next available action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiosko_punch, which likely performs the action rather than validating.

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 usage for validating before a kiosk action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like kiosko_punch or get_employee. There is no exclusion or alternative named, so usage context is only implied by the nature of the tool (validation vs action).

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