get_personnel_distribution

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that presence status is determined 'based on entry/exit records + real-time location,' which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose line, followed by parameters, return value, and a hint. It uses appropriate formatting (emojis and line breaks) for readability. However, the hint could be integrated into the main purpose sentence to avoid 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 read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return structure (list of areas with name, present count, and person list). It also notes the optional filters. Given the moderate complexity and low parameter count, the description is sufficiently complete. However, it does not mention pagination or limits if the result set is large.

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 input schema describes both parameters (mapId, areaId) with brief descriptions. The tool description repeats these descriptions without adding further meaning (e.g., format, required relationships, defaults). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 analyzes personnel distribution across areas and shows the number of people present. It specifies the optional filters (mapId, areaId) and the return structure (area list with names, count, and person list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_personnel' which lists all personnel, and 'get_area_personnel' which may focus on a single area. However, it could better differentiate from 'get_area_personnel' explicitly.

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 explains that parameters are optional and can be used to filter by map or area. It mentions that presence is determined based on entry/exit records and real-time location, implying this tool is for diagnostic purposes. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_area_personnel' or 'search_personnel', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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