List Keka Departments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return shape (IDs, names, parent department, department lead) and by making pagination visible through the pageNumber/pageSize parameters, which annotations do not convey.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief Args list, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence serves a clear function without fluff or repetition beyond the schema.

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 read-only list tool with three optional, fully described parameters, the description is complete. There is no output schema, so the Returns line usefully describes the result shape. Combined with the annotations, an agent has all necessary information to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents pageNumber, pageSize, and response_format including defaults, bounds, and enum choices. The description's Args section mostly repeats this information without adding deeper meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'all departments defined in Keka HRM', which clearly states what the tool does. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like keka_list_employees or keka_list_leave_types because it explicitly names the department entity.

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 gives a clear context: use this tool when you need the list of departments defined in Keka HRM. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with department listing, so the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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