hr_pulse

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

No annotations provided; description adds minimal behavioral context (routing, auth scope) but omits side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. For a generic runner, more transparency is needed.

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?

Description is short but includes technical routing details that may be irrelevant to the agent. Could be more focused on purpose and usage, but overall not excessively wordy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a tool with two generic parameters, completeness is inadequate.

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?

Parameter descriptions ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string') merely restate the schema field names with no added meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so description fails to clarify valid formats, examples, or constraints.

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 says 'Run the hr domain agent action hr_pulse' and describes routing through a dispatcher, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., fetch HR metrics, run a report). Among siblings like hr_compliance_check or hr_leave_request, the purpose is vague and not differentiated.

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 to use this tool versus alternative HR tools. The description only states operational routing details, not use scenarios or prerequisites.

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