get_leave_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('get') but does not specify the scope of history (e.g., date range, statuses), any side effects, required permissions, or the exact return structure beyond a vague 'Leave history message.' No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the ':return: Leave history message' line is vague and adds little value, making it somewhat less effective than it could be. Overall, it is not overly verbose and maintains a clear structure.

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 is simple, but the description lacks completeness by not explaining what 'leave history' includes or how it differs from the sibling tool get_employee_leave_balance. No behavior beyond the basic action is described, and the vague return statement does not help. Given no annotations and no output schema visible, more context is needed for a confident invocation.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. The ':param emp_id: Employee ID' line provides a basic definition but adds little beyond the parameter name itself. It does not detail the format, constraints, or how emp_id relates to the leave history query, but for a single simple parameter, it is minimally sufficient.

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 'Get the leave history of an employee' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_employee_leave_balance (which focuses on balance) and apply_leave. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that leave history differs from leave balance, nor does it explain any context or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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