Retrieve all files for a specific employee, organized by category, by supplying the employee ID. Use this to review or audit personnel documents.
List all files for a specific employee organized by category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| employeeId | Yes | The employee ID (numeric) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation and 'organized by category' hints at the return structure, but the description omits details such as pagination, authentication needs, or what happens when no files exist.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, target, and output organization clearly and efficiently.
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 one-parameter list tool, the description is minimally sufficient, but there is no output schema to clarify return values and no detail about categories or file metadata. The missing usage guidance and behavioral caveats leave clear gaps for an agent to infer.
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% and the employeeId parameter is documented as a numeric employee ID. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond matching 'specific employee' to employeeId, 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all files for a specific employee'), and the phrase 'organized by category' adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling file-related tools like get-employee-photo or list-company-files.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-company-files or get-employee-photo. The phrase 'for a specific employee' implies one circumstance, but no exclusions or comparison are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.