hcm_get_performance_document

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also does not disclose any additional context such as error handling, response format, or required permissions, which is expected when annotations only cover safety.

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, terse sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core action without padding.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and a read-only annotation, the description is minimally viable. It does not describe the return value or failure behavior, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the readOnlyHint. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what the document contains or how to interpret the ID.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the documentId parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage by clarifying format, source, or any special constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('performance document'), and access method ('by id'). It is unambiguous about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling hcm_search_performance_documents, which would earn 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of hcm_search_performance_documents suggests a distinction, but the description does not state when a direct get is appropriate (e.g., when an ID is already known).

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