List Employees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the result is 'paginated', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the default sorting or filtering behavior, or any potential side effects. The docs link offers more detail but the description itself is thin on operational context.

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 concise sentence: 'List employees/techs, paginated.' followed by a docs link. Every element earns its place, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently directs to external docs for details.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps. It does not describe return values (no output schema exists), mention filtering/sorting capabilities beyond pagination, or note any constraints. The docs link partially compensates, and the schema covers parameter details, but the description alone gives only a minimal understanding of the tool's full functionality.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the word 'paginated', which implicitly relates to page and page_size parameters, but this adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List employees/techs' with the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'employees/techs', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_customers or list_jobs. The addition of 'paginated' further clarifies the scope and behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implied usage is to retrieve employees or techs when a list is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description relies on the tool's name and simple purpose, which provides basic context but lacks comparison with siblings.

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