Training types

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the output fields and the relationship to training records, but does not describe response structure or other behavioral details. This is adequate but not extensive beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful usage pointer. 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?

Given the zero-parameter schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists the returned fields and connects to the related sibling, but the exact response shape (e.g., array vs. object) is not stated. Still, this is a minor gap for such a simple list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying that training categories are part of the result, which helps the agent understand the output even though no inputs are needed.

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 says this tool lists the company's training types with specific fields and training categories. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling bamboohr_training_records, with which it directly connects via the type id.

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 clearly implies this is the lookup tool for training type definitions and tells the agent to use the returned type id with bamboohr_training_records. It does not explicitly exclude other alternatives, but the context and sibling list make the intended usage clear.

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