list_departments

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the parameter definition. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety aspect is covered, but the description does not disclose any response format, default scope, or other behavioral traits that might affect agent decisions.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter details follow in a clean, structured list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more thorough for a tool with limited annotations.

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 boolean parameter, no output schema) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is almost adequate but lacks context on what departments are returned (e.g., filtered by user scope) and how the result is structured. It does not fully leverage the opportunity to help the agent understand behavior beyond the parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter include_inactive with a clear meaning ('Include inactive departments') and its default value ('Default True'), adding significant value beyond the schema's primitive type and default. This adequately covers the lone parameter.

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 states 'List departments' which clearly identifies the resource and action, but fails to differentiate from sibling list tools like list_designations or list_employees. Without any distinguishing context, the purpose is vague for an AI agent choosing among similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_designations for designations, list_employees for employees). There is no mention of context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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