freee clock status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds domain-specific context by stating 'never creates a punch' and 'current available,' reinforcing the read-only nature and indicating the tool reflects a stateful snapshot. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and safety profile.

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 read-only tool with high schema coverage and strong annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It does not elaborate on the effect of the date parameter or the format of the returned punch actions, but this is not critical given the schema covers parameter basics and the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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 both parameters documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('current available freee punch actions'). It also explicitly states 'This tool never creates a punch,' which distinguishes it from write-oriented sibling tools like freee_clock_prepare_action and freee_clock_commit_action.

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 the tool is for checking available actions before performing a punch, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the prepare/commit siblings. 'This tool never creates a punch' provides a negative guideline, but no direct alternative or precondition is mentioned.

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