hr__timecard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important non-obvious guardrail: attempting to place your own timecard next to a colleague's for comparison is refused under COC-HR-021, while team review is allowed. This gives the agent actionable policy context beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation and then adds the necessary policy exception. The category tag and policy code convey extra context efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the input scope (one person by email), the output semantics (hours per week this month), and the key access restriction. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single email parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description only repeats 'by email' without adding new format, default, or usage detail. The schema's own example ('your own or a colleague's') is more informative than the description's mention.

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 names a specific resource ('timecard for one person by email') and the exact output ('hours logged per week this month'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling HR tools like leave balance or recent joiners. The [timesheets] prefix adds useful category context.

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 first clause states when to use the tool: to read one person's timecard by email. The demo caveat explicitly marks a refused use case (comparing your own card with a colleague's) and an allowed one (reviewing your team's cards). It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling appears to cover this exact function.

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