get_leave_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says ':return: Leave history message,' which is vague and does not explain the nature of the history (e.g., dates, statuses, formatting), potential errors, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, but it is under-specified. A more complete description could include relevant details without being verbose, so while it is efficient, it sacrifices usefulness.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the lack of annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'leave history' includes, how the result is structured, and any edge cases. The current description is too sparse to be considered complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the emp_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It states 'emp_id: Employee ID' and 'return: Leave history message,' but these are largely redundant with the parameter name and provide minimal additional meaning. The description does not clarify expected formats, constraints, or the meaning of the return value in any detail.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the leave history of an employee.' This is distinct and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_employee_leave_balance, which could cause minor confusion about which leave-related tool to use.

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 does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as get_employee_leave_balance and apply_leave imply related scenarios, but the description offers no decision-making support.

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