hcm_get_worker

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by using 'Get'. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as response shape, error behavior, or permissions, but for a simple get operation the annotation covers the safety profile. No contradiction exists.

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 one short sentence plus a compact example, with no filler or repetition. The key lookup mechanism is front-loaded and the example reinforces the parameter shape efficiently. This is appropriately sized for a one-parameter get tool.

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 low-complexity read-only lookup with a single required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description plus annotation is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is not a gap here because the return value is implied by 'Get a worker'. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the workerId parameter is already documented as the 'Worker primary key'. The description's example provides a concrete value format, which is mildly helpful, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a worker by WorkerId'. It is clear that this is a direct-fetch operation keyed on the worker's primary key. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hcm_search_workers or hcm_get_public_worker, so it earns 4 rather than 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 phrase 'by WorkerId' implies the tool is intended for direct lookup when a worker ID is already known, which is useful guidance. It does not explicitly state when to prefer hcm_search_workers or hcm_get_public_worker, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage conditions remain implied rather than stated.

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