late_registers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement for mod_attendance_* functions in the token's service, which is a useful prerequisite, and explains the grouping and categorization logic. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or any side effects (though it is likely read-only). This is partial transparency.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then details the grouping and prerequisite. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is somewhat long and could be split for readability. Overall, it is well-structured and concise.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior (grouping, categories, prerequisite) but omits details about the return format, such as whether it returns counts or full details, and any limitations or edge cases. For a list tool with three optional parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (days, hours, search), covering 100% of the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already states; it merely references the ESE rule, which is already encoded in the hours parameter default. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline 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 lists attendance registers that are late or pending, grouped by lecturer with specific categories (overdue, taken late, pending). It also specifies the rule (ESE: 24 hours) and the prerequisite (mod_attendance_* functions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attendance_report, which likely provides a general report, and mark_attendance, which is for marking.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attendance_report or attendance_sessions. It implies it is for identifying late registers but does not name alternatives or conditions for selection. An agent would have to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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