list_employees

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists employee names, implying a read operation, but omits details like permission requirements, pagination behavior, or whether the list is exhaustive. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, likely straightforward output), the description is mostly complete. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, it could mention that it returns a list or provide a usage hint, but overall it's adequate for an experienced agent.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it doesn't, which is appropriate. No additional meaning is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('employee names'), clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_employee' or 'apply_leave' which involve mutations or leave management, leaving no ambiguity about this read-only lookup.

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 on when or when not to use this tool. The description does not mention context, alternatives, or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't state that this tool should be used before adding an employee or checking leave balances. Without such cues, an agent may misuse it.

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