list_hr_document_templates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral details such as pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or response structure. Since annotations already convey the non-destructive nature, the description's contribution is minimal, resulting in a mid-range score.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resources. It is concise with no extraneous information, though it could benefit from a brief usage context or note about the optional filter parameters.

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 (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on return format or pagination beyond the limit parameter. Annotations cover safety, but for a listing tool, some guidance on expected response structure would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (category, active, limit), each with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds value by listing example categories ('onboarding, offboarding, benefits, policy') but does not fundamentally enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's action ('List available HR document templates') and provides specific examples of document types (offer letters, contracts, policies), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on HR document templates rather than general records or other HR entities.

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 templates but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like searching or filtering. It lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or references to related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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