run-adhoc-report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides valuable runtime behavior: output defaults to JSON unless format=CSV, and the onlyCurrent flag controls whether terminated employees are included. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the tool's read-oriented report nature makes this less critical.

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?

Three concise sentences cover the core action, parameter alternatives, output format, and the key scoping flag. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The definition gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: it explains preset vs fields, JSON/CSV output, and the onlyCurrent behavior. Gaps are minor, such as not explicitly stating that presetName and fields are mutually exclusive and not pointing to run-custom-report for saved custom reports, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter relationships: presetName and fields are presented as alternatives, format=CSV overrides the JSON default, and onlyCurrent=false includes terminated employees. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying defaults and usage intent.

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 a specific action ('Run an ad-hoc custom report') and the resource ('BambooHR') with a distinct mechanism ('posting a field list'). It also differentiates itself from saved-report tools by emphasizing ad-hoc field selection, making its purpose unambiguous even among siblings like run-custom-report.

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 explains internal options ('Use either a saved preset or pass an explicit fields array') and notes the onlyCurrent behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over run-custom-report or list-report-presets. The 'ad-hoc' wording implies the use case, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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