get_my_leaves

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 it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, and the structure (purpose then args) is logical. Minor deduction because the parameter details could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only 2 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on authentication, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in 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 description adds meaningful context for both parameters: it explains that 'state' filters by specific states (draft, confirm, validate, refuse) and 'limit' sets a maximum record count with a default of 20. Since schema description coverage is 0% (titles only provide generic labels like 'State' and 'Limit'), this compensates well by clarifying the semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get leave requests for the current user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('leave requests'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'request_leave' (which creates leave requests) and 'get_my_attendance' (which retrieves attendance data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible list/read 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over other 'get_my_' tools (e.g., 'get_my_tasks'), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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