get_leave_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not detail error handling or return format, but for a simple getter this is sufficient and nothing contradicts the absence of 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. It states exactly what the tool does without redundant detail.

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 (single required parameter, output schema present), the description is adequately complete. It communicates the purpose and the employee reference, and the output schema covers return values. It does not mention edge cases like invalid employee IDs, but such details are not essential for this basic getter.

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 0% parameter description coverage, but the description says 'for an employee' which clarifies that employee_id identifies the employee. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema and compensates for the lack of property documentation.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('leave balance'), and the target ('for an employee'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_leave_history and get_employee_details.

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 implies use when you need the current leave balance, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_leave_history. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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