list_punch_days

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: the destructive effect on review status when reimporting a passed day, and explains the review substructure. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden and does so effectively.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first line states purpose and return format, then explains review substructure, followed by a critical usage warning, and ends with parameter note. No unnecessary words; 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?

Complete for a simple list tool: covers purpose, return format, review substructure, behavioral warning, and parameter. Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately explains what the tool does without over-specifying.

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?

Only one parameter (book_id) with no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions the parameter as a string but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but the parameter is simple and the explanation minimal.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all punch days of a book along with review status, specifying the return structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_punch_day (singular) and upsert_punch_day.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use before reimporting a day to check existence and review status. Warns that reimporting a passed day resets review. No explicit alternatives are given, but the context is clear.

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