get_leave_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get leave history', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes error handling, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get leave history for the employee'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by including key details like scope or usage, but as-is, it's efficiently concise without being under-specified.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it doesn't fully compensate, but the output schema reduces the need to explain returns, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 one parameter ('employee_id') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about its meaning or format. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'employee_id' represents, its expected format (e.g., numeric, string), or validation rules. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Get leave history for the employee' clearly states the action (get) and resource (leave history), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'leave history' includes (e.g., past requests, approvals, dates) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_leave_balance', which might overlap in scope. It avoids tautology but remains somewhat vague.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid employee ID, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'apply_leave' (for submitting requests) or 'get_leave_balance' (for current status). This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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