export_employees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only core fields are exported, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not clarify what 'effective' means (e.g., active vs. all employees) or mention output format, pagination, or data limits. The statement 'effective employee master data' is somewhat ambiguous but still adds partial transparency beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence that conveys the action, resource, and scope. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler. It is ideally sized for an API tool description.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool exports and the field scope. The main gap is the ambiguity around 'effective' and the lack of explicit mention of return structure, but given the simplicity and sibling context, the description is largely sufficient.

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 single parameter 'language' is fully described in the input schema with a default and description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No further clarification is needed.

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 specifies a clear action ('Export'), a resource ('effective employee master data'), and a scope ('core fields only'). This distinguishes it from siblings like export_employees_full, which presumably exports all fields, and list_active_employees, which might return a different format or filtered subset. The qualifier 'effective' and 'core fields only' add semantic precision.

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 phrase 'core fields only' implicitly communicates when to use this tool versus alternatives: if only essential fields are needed, select this export; if full data is required, use the full export sibling. However, there is no explicit directive like 'use this when' or 'for complete data, use export_employees_full,' leaving some room for inference.

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