gerent365_list_time_off

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool lists requests and supports filtering, but it does not mention scope (e.g., whether it returns all requests or only the current user's), potential permissions, or return format details. This is a gap for a read operation.

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, concise sentence with front-loaded information: it states the primary action and then the filtering capability. Every word is necessary, and there is no wasted language.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely adequate. It explains what the tool does and mentions the filter. However, it lacks explicit detail about the output structure or ownership scope, which could be important in a complete context. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'status', including its possible values in the schema description. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'solicitudes de ausencia' (absence requests), making the tool's purpose explicit. It also mentions the optional status filter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_time_off and update_time_off.

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 the tool lists absence requests and can be filtered by status, which informs the use of the optional parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but its list nature and resource specificity make the usage straightforward.

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