Kasra Get System Shifts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a 'get' action, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, or the purpose of the optional 'reason' parameter. Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 brief and to the point, with no filler. Both Persian and English versions say the same thing efficiently, and the resource type is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the purpose is clear, the description omits any explanation of the only parameter, 'reason', and provides no usage guidance or behavioral caveats. For a simple tool this is incomplete, as an agent cannot fully determine how to call it correctly without guessing.

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 has one parameter, 'reason', with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess whether or how to fill it. No compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb (get/دریافت) and a specific resource (all work shifts defined in Kasra system), with examples of shift types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other data like profiles, reports, or credit types.

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 when an agent needs the list of system-defined shifts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since there is no close sibling doing the same job, the implied context is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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