get_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('List') and specifies the returned content, but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as whether results are limited to active staff, ordering, or pagination. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence with 13 words, immediately stating the action and expected content. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (contact info, staff directory, names, roles, phones). It does not explain the return format or list structure, but for a straightforward directory listing, this level is sufficient. Missing a note about pagination or filtering is a minor gap.

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 0% for the single parameter (school_id). The description does not mention the parameter at all, forcing the agent to infer from the name and tool context. While school_id is reasonably self-explanatory, the description fails to explicitly connect it to the tool's purpose, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('school contact info and staff directory') and the content ('names, roles, and phone numbers'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_staff_member (single staff member) and list_schools (school names only).

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 the tool is used to retrieve directory information for a school, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no comparison with get_staff_member or list_schools, so guidance is only implied by the tool name and description.

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