get-departments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly communicates a read-only, all-departments listing, but it does not disclose details such as whether inactive or hidden departments are included, whether authentication is required, or what the response structure looks like.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource immediately and contains no redundant or unclear phrasing.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it knows the purpose, scope, and lack of required inputs. The absence of an output schema and annotations means response-format details are left unspecified, but for such a simple tool this is acceptable.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters that the description would need to explain. With no parameters, the description is not required to add semantic detail beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 is specific: 'Get all departments in the company' names the verb ('get'), the resource ('departments'), and the scope ('all in the company'). It is also clearly distinct from all siblings, which focus on reports, employees, files, and time off rather than departments.

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 usage context is implied — use this tool when you need a list of all company departments — but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over other list-like tools such as discover-datasets or get-team-info. For a zero-parameter lookup this is a minor gap, not a serious one.

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