woffu_complete_day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a timing constraint but does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing entries, requires any state, or has side effects. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by a key constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Considering the complexity (2 params, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools), the description covers the core functionality and usage constraint. However, it omits any information about the return value or outcome, which is a notable gap for a construction tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (date and slots). The description adds minimal extra meaning (just 'Fill time entries'), but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Fill time entries for a past day.' It specifies the resource (time entries) and the action (fill), and distinguishes from siblings like clock_in/out which handle individual slots. The added constraint about today after 17:00 further clarifies scope.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Cannot be used for today until after 17:00,' indicating when to use (past days, or today after 17:00). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like woffu_day_detail or woffu_status, leaving some ambiguity about relative use cases.

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