get_sri_lanka_payslip_checklistReturn the fields and checks needed to prepare or review a Sri Lankan employee payslip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | ||
| earnings | Yes | ||
| guideUrl | Yes | ||
| evidenceNote | Yes | ||
| generatorUrl | Yes | ||
| identityAndPeriod | Yes | ||
| employeeDeductions | Yes | ||
| verificationChecks | Yes | ||
| employerContributions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds context that the tool returns fields and checks, which is consistent and adds value beyond bare annotations.
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?
Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the main action and resource. No extraneous content; every word 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?
With no parameters, output schema available, and annotations covering behavior, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose clearly, and no further information is needed.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info; schema coverage is 100% trivially. No missing semantics.
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 it returns fields and checks for a Sri Lankan payslip, using a specific verb ('return') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings: 'calculate_sri_lanka_payslip' for computation, 'get_sri_lanka_payroll_reference' for reference data.
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?
Description implies use when preparing or reviewing a payslip, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative sibling tools. Guidance is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calculation, reference data, and checklist. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate_..., get_...), with clear and descriptive naming.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its narrow domain of Sri Lanka payslip processing. Each tool is essential.
The set covers calculation, reference assumptions, and a checklist, which are sufficient for basic payslip tasks. Minor gaps like handling edge cases or multiple employments are absent but within the stated scope.