get_employees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), or what data is returned. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation in this context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—parameters 'limit' and 'offset' are not mentioned or explained. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context, scoring below the baseline.

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 'Retrieve employees' states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (employees), which is clear but minimal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_employee' (singular) by implying a collection, but lacks specificity about scope or filtering compared to other get_* tools (e.g., 'get_absences', 'get_contracts'). It's not tautological but remains vague on what exactly is retrieved.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_employee' (singular) for individual retrieval or 'search' for filtered queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The description alone offers no usage differentiation.

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