Base Account Get Units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists all units/groups, but does not disclose whether it returns nested hierarchies, whether it requires admin permissions, whether it is paginated, or what the response structure looks like. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, with no wasted words.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. The description is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, but it lacks context about pagination, permissions, or whether the result includes all nested levels. Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, this is a minimum-viable level of 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?

The schema has one optional parameter (access_token) with 0% description coverage, so the description does not explain it. However, the parameter is self-explanatory (an access token) and optional, so the lack of description is a minor gap. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the schema is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 a specific verb ('Lấy danh sách' = get list) and resource ('phòng ban, nhóm và đơn vị tổ chức' = departments, groups, and organizational units), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like base_account_get_group_detail, but the plural 'all' and the broad scope distinguish it from more specific sibling tools.

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 implies this is a read-only listing tool for all units/groups, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like base_account_get_group_detail or base_wework_list_departments, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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