get_punch_day

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

Without annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: round-trip semantics, rotating items returned without question text, review status structure, and that blocks are assembled by the backend. This is comprehensive.

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 but information-dense, using bullet points and icons to convey key points. It is front-loaded with purpose and every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context on the return structure and round-trip semantics. It covers the main components and how to use the tool in conjunction with upsert_punch_day.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: book_id as string, day as integer (1-indexed). However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints like format or range, but it's sufficient for basic usage.

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 reads back the full content for a given day, listing the fields (ok, goals, modules, review). It distinguishes from siblings like list_punch_days and upsert_punch_day by specifying its role in the round-trip workflow.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: before modifying a day's content (get full data, then modify and upsert). It also notes that for rendering previews, a different endpoint should be used.

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