list_employees

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It states it lists all sample employees, which is transparent. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations (e.g., pagination) or that it's a read-only operation. But for a simple list with no parameters, this is adequate.

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: one for purpose, one for usage. Every word earns its place. No unnecessary information.

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 zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose and usage. However, it could briefly mention the output format or refer to the schema for return details. Siblings like list_managers suggest a subtle distinction not addressed.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the fields returned (IDs, roles, departments, managers), which is not in the schema. This compensates for the lack of parameter details.

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?

Description explicitly states it lists all sample employees with specific fields (IDs, roles, departments, managers). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_managers and get_employee_details.

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?

Explicitly advises using the tool before creating an employee to get valid manager IDs/names. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the provided context is helpful. Missing exclusion of alternatives like list_managers.

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