Kasra Get Work Periods

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is clear. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or any behavioral nuances such as pagination or filtering. The description is adequate but minimal for behavioral transparency.

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 concise, with two sentences (Persian and English) conveying the same core message. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The repetition is slight but not excessive, and there is no fluff. It could be slightly tightened by removing the duplicate translation, but it remains efficient.

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 description is complete enough for the main purpose, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it omits any explanation of the optional 'reason' parameter, which is a significant gap for correct invocation. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'reason' with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, providing no meaning beyond the raw schema. Since schema coverage is low, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so, leaving the agent without any guidance on how or why to use 'reason'.

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 and resource: 'Get all available attendance and financial work periods with their IDs and titles.' This distinguishes it from report or shift tools, though it does not explicitly reference siblings. It is a clear purpose statement, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No alternatives are named.

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