Kasra Get Cartable Items

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does identify the operation as read-only ('view') and scopes it to received workflow items, but it does not state extra behavioral constraints such as whether only the caller's items are shown, whether the tab parameter changes the result set, or whether any side effects occur; the schema covers some of this, but the description itself is thin.

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 one short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and a useful clarifying parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the core semantics (what the cartable contains and why it is used). A brief pointer distinguishing this from kasra_get_submitted_requests would make it fully complete, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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% and the tab parameter already documents its default and four options, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ('مشاهده' / view) with a specific resource: workflow cartable documents and requests, including incoming items for review, approval, or referral. This makes the purpose clear and broadly separates it from sibling tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with the similar-sounding kasra_get_submitted_requests.

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 parenthetical ('اسناد دریافتی برای بررسی، تأیید یا ارجاع') implies that the tool is for inspecting workflow items that need user action. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor any named alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary from the description alone.

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