get_worker_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns cloneable fields (job profile, supervisory org, country) and requires prior user confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not specify permission requirements, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and then the usage condition in the second. Both sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical explanation could be slightly tighter.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and usage condition but lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, permissions, and error handling. It is adequate but not fully complete given the lack of structured metadata.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one required parameter, the description implies that employee_id identifies the confirmed template worker but does not add format, syntax, or source details beyond what the schema name suggests. It partially compensates by linking the parameter to the confirmation step, but not enough to fully document it.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetching a confirmed template worker's cloneable fields via Get_Workers, and enumerates what is returned (job profile, supervisory org, country). It distinguishes the purpose from siblings like search_workers by emphasizing the confirmed template selection, though it does not name a direct sibling as an alternative.

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 states when to use it: 'Call this only after the user has confirmed exactly which worker (by employee_id) to use as the template.' This provides a clear prerequisite and timing condition, effectively guiding the agent on when and when not to invoke the tool.

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