get_leave_defaults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens if defaults are unset. Since there is no annotation coverage, a bit more context would be expected, but the simplicity of a zero-parameter getter tempers the impact.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary function and its relationship to another tool. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are structured), and the description clarifies its use in the workflow, nothing essential is missing. The agent can correctly invoke it based on the provided information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps. It adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('configurable defaults'), and directly ties it to a sibling's purpose ('used by create_leave_calendar_blocks'). This clearly distinguishes it from set_leave_defaults (which modifies these defaults), so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 clearly places the tool in the workflow by referencing create_leave_calendar_blocks, implying this is the getter to call before creating blocks. It does not explicitly mention the alternative set_leave_defaults, but the contrast is implicit and adequate for straightforward use.

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