passgage_list_departments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the tool's purpose and schema parameters. It does not disclose auth requirements, default behavior for unfiltered lists, or response structure. 'List' implies read-only, but additional context like 'returns all departments by default' or 'supports Ransack-style filters' is already in the schema, not added by the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key capabilities without redundancy.

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, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explicitly mention the return value (e.g., an array of department objects) or any prerequisites. The schema covers parameters well, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could have provided more context about expected response or limitations. However, the simplicity of the tool reduces the risk of misuse.

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% (page, filters, per_page each have descriptions), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List departments with optional filtering and pagination', using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('departments'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_department (single item) and create/update/delete department operations.

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 usage for retrieving multiple departments with optional filters and pagination. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the naming convention among siblings (get_department for singular) provides clear context for when to use this list tool.

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