hcm_get_grade

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's word 'Get' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides—no mention of response structure, error behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. With the annotation carrying the main safety signal, the description does not enhance transparency further.

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 extremely succinct—just three words—with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the essential action and resource. While it is terse, it is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool; there is no unnecessary detail that would impede comprehension.

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?

In the context of a large API surface with many related tools (e.g., hcm_search_grades, hcm_get_worker), this one-liner lacks essential context. It does not explain what a 'grade' represents in this system, how to locate the correct id, or what fields will be returned. Without an output schema and with zero parameter descriptions, the description falls short of providing a complete contract for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.

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 only parameter gradeId is briefly implied by the phrase 'by id', but the description does not elaborate on what a gradeId is, how to obtain it, or any constraints (format, length, etc.). The schema only defines it as a string, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 (grade), and the access method (by id). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling hcm_search_grades, which implies a search over grades rather than a direct lookup. However, it does not explicitly name that alternative, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, particularly hcm_search_grades. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that 'get by id' is for single-record retrieval, but no explicit usage context is given.

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