hcm_list_direct_reports

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that this is a 'dummy' and that it simply filters workers by ManagerPersonNumber, clarifying that it does not perform true org-chart traversal.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about the dummy filtering behavior is included compactly in a parenthetical.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters, the description covers the main purpose, the key parameter, and the behavioral nuance. It could additionally clarify the limit parameter or response shape, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains managerPersonNumber's role, but the optional 'limit' parameter is not described at all. With two parameters and only one given semantic meaning, the compensation is partial.

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 action ('List'), a clear resource ('direct reports'), and the identifying input ('manager person number'). It also clarifies the implementation ('dummy: filters workers by ManagerPersonNumber'), which distinguishes it from related worker lookup tools.

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 when to use the tool: when you need direct reports for a manager person number. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is mostly inferred.

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