Kasra Get Daily Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implicitly signals a read-only operation via 'دریافت' and gives a detailed inventory of output content, including the total-period row. However, it does not mention authorization needs, default date-range behavior, or any side effects—though for a GET-style report tool the omission is not severe.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a compact bullet list to enumerate output fields. Each bullet adds distinct, non-redundant information, and the note about the total row is useful. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no required parameters and an output schema present, the description's detailed field inventory is more than sufficient for an agent to understand what will be returned. The main gap is the lack of guidance about default date behavior and relative selection among sibling reports, but the schema and output schema cover most practical calling needs.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for start_date, end_date, and reason. The fields are adequately documented in the schema itself.

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 verb 'دریافت' (retrieve) and the resource: a detailed daily attendance/traffic report. It enumerates the specific fields included (presence, absences, punches, leaves, missions, remote work), and the word 'روزانه' (daily) distinguishes it from sibling tools like kasra_get_monthly_report.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kasra_get_monthly_report, kasra_get_dashboard_summary, or kasra_export_daily_report_excel. The only implicit cue is 'daily' in the name and description, which is not sufficient routing guidance.

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