Kasra Get Punch Gaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes punches and returns structured gap data, and implies it's a read-only analysis. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like overlapping shifts, missing punches, or how shift boundaries are handled. The description is honest but not deeply transparent about behavioral details.

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 reasonably concise, with a Persian version followed by an English version. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the output structure. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not harmful. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented. The description explains the purpose, the output structure, and the use case (hourly leave). It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for a gap-analysis tool with 5 optional parameters, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds context about the output structure but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: analyzing daily punches to find gaps where the employee was out during their shift, and identifies the output (date, gapStart, gapEnd, duration). It also includes a Persian version that adds context about identifying hours needing hourly leave. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kasra_get_work_periods or kasra_get_daily_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?

The description explains the tool is suitable for identifying hours that need hourly leave submission, which gives clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over other kasra_get_* tools.

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