get_attendance_rules

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 returns data for every active employee and lists the specific information returned (shift, rest-day rule, attendance-group). This gives the agent a good sense of the operation's behavior, though it does not mention authorization, pagination, or error handling.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes no filler or redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description adequately explains what is returned and for whom. It could be slightly more complete by describing the output structure (e.g., one entry per employee), but this is a minor gap for a straightforward read-only configuration query.

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 100% for the single parameter search_date, and its format is already documented. The description adds value by explaining that this date determines which configuration applies and that it applies to active employees on that date, which clarifies the parameter's semantic role beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource: 'each employee's base attendance configuration'. It also clarifies the temporal applicability ('as of a given date') and the returned fields (shift, rest-day rule, attendance-group information), which distinguishes it from sibling attendance tools that handle history, abnormal records, or summaries.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve base attendance configuration for all active employees on a specific date. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_attendance_history or get_attendance_abnormal, nor does it name any alternatives. This is a clear context without exclusions.

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