List Employee Interviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and lists return fields, but does not disclose default behavior (e.g., unbounded results), filtering specifics, or any side effects. This is adequate but shallow for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get employee interview / meeting records') and lists key output fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 8 optional filters and no output schema, yet the description provides only minimal return-field info and no mention of output structure, filter interaction, or default behavior. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves several contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with each of the 8 parameters described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning the fields that appear in records (type, interviewer, description, dates), so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool retrieves employee interview/meeting records and specifies the included fields (type, interviewer, description, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools for other entity types like employees, contacts, or absences.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It simply states what it returns without suggesting scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to other list tools, leaving usage entirely implied.

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