consultar_batidas

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses important behaviors: accepts partial names ('Aceita nome parcial'), expects date format YYYY-MM-DD, and notes the data range (maio a julho de 2026). This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose, usage scenarios, and technical details. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficiently structured.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and data constraints. Lacks explanation of absence handling, but output schema likely covers return structure.

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 description must compensate. It explains that 'nome_colaborador' accepts partial names, and date parameters use format YYYY-MM-DD within a specific period. This gives meaning to the three parameters beyond their schema titles.

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 it consults time punches ('batidas de ponto') for a team member in a period, using specific verb 'Consulta'. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like analytics_rh (HR analytics) or aprovar_ajuste (approve adjustments).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use para perguntas sobre horários, atrasos, horas extras ou batidas faltantes de uma pessoa específica', providing clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tool names imply alternatives for other tasks.

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