get_attendance_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns raw records, and spans all employees without filtering. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear behavioral picture, though it omits details like pagination or output shape.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core action and scope, earning every word.

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?

This is a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently indicates that the return will be raw clock-in/out records for all employees, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks details on pagination or response format, but these are not critical for initial tool selection given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear format descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds only the phrase 'within a date range,' which adds little beyond the schema's date range descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('raw clock-in / clock-out records') and scope ('across all employees within a date range'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_attendance_summary and get_attendance_abnormal by emphasizing 'raw' records.

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 states the tool returns raw records for all employees, which gives clear context for when to use it (e.g., needing actual punches rather than summaries). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_attendance_summary for aggregated data.

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