get_leave_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only restates the basic read operation without mentioning permissions, side effects, or specific behaviors like which leave types are included or date ranges. Since 'retrieve' implies read-only, it is somewhat transparent but lacks depth.

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, straightforward sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, and does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar leave-related tools. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 description says 'for an employee', which clarifies that the employee_id parameter identifies the employee whose history is retrieved. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but with 0% schema description coverage, more explicit parameter guidance would be beneficial. The parameter name itself is largely self-explanatory.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource 'past leave history' with the target 'an employee'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_leave_balance and apply_leave.

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 usage (when you need an employee's past leave history) but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over get_leave_balance or other leave-related tools.

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