feegow_list_employees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the HTTP method and basic parameters, but lacks details on pagination, data limits, or default behavior if no parameters are given (though ativo is required).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the HTTP endpoint. 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?

For a simple list tool with one required parameter, the description provides the essential info: what it lists, the filter, and optional unit. It omits potential details like pagination, but is adequate for basic usage.

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 description echoes the parameter meanings (ativo required, unidade optional). It adds no new insights beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for high coverage.

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 it lists employee names and IDs, with required filtering by active/inactive status. It also specifies the HTTP endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other entities like professionals.

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 explicitly states the required parameter (ativo) and optional parameter (unidade), guiding usage. It implies this is for listing employees, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like feegow_list_professionals.

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