list_personnel

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the return format (pagination, fields like name, department, phone, binding tags) and the behavior of filters, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses structure (paragraphs, bullet-like list) but includes an emoji that slightly reduces formality. Every sentence adds value, though it redundantly repeats schema info.

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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it clearly states the purpose, all optional parameters with explanations, default values, return format, and a usage hint. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter descriptions and defaults already present in the schema, adding no new semantic information. The hint about keyword is useful but already implied by the schema description.

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 it retrieves a personnel list with optional filters by department or keyword. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_personnel' tool, which may serve a similar purpose, reducing clarity for an agent deciding between the two.

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 lists parameters and provides a hint about using the keyword for fuzzy search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_personnel' or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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