get_approval_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the role-to-level mapping but does not describe the output format, handling of unknown/conflicting roles, or empty input, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence with a compact enumeration of the possible levels. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning without 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?

For a deterministic mapping tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and enumerates all possible outcomes. It lacks explicit edge-case handling but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already describes the roles parameter as an array of 1C role names with 100% coverage. The description adds context about how these roles map to approval levels, but does not enrich the input parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 determines the approval level for a set of roles, listing all possible levels (standard, accounting, transport, transport_accounting) with their meanings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_roles or get_roles_matrix.

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 implied usage is when you need to derive an approval level from a set of 1C role names. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a simple mapping function.

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