gerent365_list_job_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation with the verb 'Lista' and specifies the scope ('del negocio'), but it does not disclose details such as whether all job positions are included (e.g., active only), ordering, or response structure. The description is sufficient for a simple list operation but lacks explicit behavioral traits beyond the core function.

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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It is concise with no redundant words or filler, effectively conveying the purpose in minimal space.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for an agent to understand when to use it. It states what it returns (list of job positions with hourly rates) and the scope. Minor gaps include not specifying the exact fields returned or any filtering behavior, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline for a score of 4. The description does not need to specify parameter semantics because there are none, and the schema confirms an empty object.

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 that the tool lists job positions (JobPosition) from the business, including their hourly rates. The verb 'Lista' is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_job_position, update_job_position, and delete_job_position.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for listing job positions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since the sibling tools include create/update/delete operations, usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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