wedaka_get_timelog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and the phrase 'Returns...' imply a read-only operation and disclose the content of the response. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention any permission requirements, or clarify if it returns data for the current user or all employees. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the action and scope, the second summarizes the expected return contents. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. It does not detail the structure of the returned data (e.g., list vs object), and it omits whether the logs are for the current employee or all employees, but these are minor gaps for the tool's simplicity. The description is largely complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (year and month), including ranges and examples. The description only adds the phrase 'for a specific month,' which does not meaningfully enhance the schema's parameter documentation. 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 function: retrieving employee time log records for a specific month. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time log records'), and the mention of 'clock-in/out times, leave records, and work day information' provides concrete scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wedaka_clock_in/out (actions) and wedaka_check_work_day (single-day check).

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 implies use when monthly aggregated time log data is needed, which differentiates it from the daily/action-oriented sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance but provides clear context.

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