hcm_get_candidate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the id-based lookup, but the annotation covers the most important safety trait.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation and key parameter role efficiently.

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 single-parameter read operation with readOnlyHint=true, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the operation. It does not describe return format or not-found behavior, but those are not critical to selecting and calling such a simple get-by-id tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description's 'by id' does clarify that candidateId is the identifier for the candidate being retrieved. However, it provides no additional detail about id format, origin, or constraints beyond what the schema already states with the property name and type.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('recruiting candidate'), and identifies the lookup key ('by id'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling hcm_search_candidates by implying a single-record fetch by identifier, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a candidate ID and need the corresponding candidate record. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose, such as hcm_search_candidates for search scenarios.

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