passgage_get_working_day

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not state the return format, error behavior (e.g., 404 on missing ID), permissions, or any other side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence that directly states the action and target. It is front-loaded, contains no unnecessary words, and is easy to parse quickly. This is an example of concise, effective tool description.

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 the tool has only one parameter fully described in the schema and a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from explicitly stating the return value (e.g., the full working_day object) or error handling. The lack of such detail makes it somewhat incomplete for an agent that needs to handle results correctly.

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 full coverage for the only parameter 'id' with 'The UUID of the working_day to retrieve'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but given the schema description coverage is 100%, 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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'working_day' and the limitation 'by ID', clearly indicating a single-record fetch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_working_days, create_working_day, etc., even though it does not explicitly name them.

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 usage context (use when you have a specific ID and need one record) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_working_days. No exclusions or preconditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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