list_leave_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing the status code semantics (1=Brouillon to 5=Annulé), but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what the default scope is, or how results are returned. The read-only nature is only implied by 'Lister'.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by essential status reference. There is no redundant content or filler.

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 simple list tool, this is adequate but has gaps: it does not mention default filtering behavior (e.g., whether all statuses are returned by default), pagination/limit defaults, or how parameters interact. No output schema is provided, so more context would be needed for full completeness.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates partially by providing an enumerated mapping for the status parameter. However, it does not explain the 'limit' or 'sqlfilters' parameters, leaving their meaning and usage unclear.

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 'Lister les demandes de congés' which is a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating it lists leave requests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_leave_request (single fetch), create_leave_request (creation), and list_leave_types (different resource).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_leave_request or list_leave_types. The name implies listing, but there is no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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