list_ukg_exceptions

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail: the view is scoped to the configured API user. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default date ranges, or whether exceptions are limited to a certain time window. Given the absence of annotations, more disclosure would be needed for a higher score.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't mention return behavior, default values, or what happens when no parameters are provided, which an agent would likely need to know for correct use.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions and coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to since the schema is self-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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List timekeeping exceptions') and adds context about the visibility scope ('visible to the configured UKG Ready API user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ukg_employees and get_ukg_timecards.

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 is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as call_ukg_endpoint or get_ukg_timecards. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases beyond the basic definition.

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