get_employee_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the output (employee ID or Manager ID) but does not specify side effects, error handling for missing employees, or whether it is read-only. The ambiguous 'or' in output leaves uncertainty.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence and a param line. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the structure could be improved by separating the return type.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the input and basic output, but lacks details like employee details fields (beyond ID/Manager ID), behavior for non-existent names, and edge cases.

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 description includes a `:param name:` line explaining the parameter's meaning, adding value beyond the schema which only provides type and title. With 0% schema coverage, this is helpful. However, it could be more detailed (e.g., format).

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 it retrieves employee details by name, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('employee details'). Among sibling tools, it is distinct as a retrieval operation, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_employee or list_ticket. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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