getShiftsDevuelve los turnos en los que Cooper presta servicios (mañana, tarde, noche). Cada turno incluye su identificador, código y rango horario. Útil para asistir al usuario en la elección de horario al crear una orden de paseo o adiestramiento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return content (id, code, time range) and clarifies the data represents Cooper's service shifts. Though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only', the verb 'Devuelve' and the descriptive nature strongly imply a non-mutating query, which is adequate for a simple list operation.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It introduces the return structure and provides a concrete use case without any fluff or repetition.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and why it's used. It lists the fields returned, but doesn't specify possible values for the time ranges (beyond examples) or sorting/pagination, which is still acceptable given the low complexity.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter details. It does mention output fields, which aids the agent in understanding what data will be returned, though this is not strictly parameter semantics.
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 that the tool returns available shifts (turnos) with identifier, code, and time range, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getBreeds or getServiceCatalog. It uses a specific verb 'Devuelve' and names the exact resource, 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 description explicitly says it is useful for assisting the user in choosing a schedule when creating a walking or training order, which tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool. It also implies this should be used before creating an order, providing clear usage context without needing to reference alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: coverage checks, lead capture, order creation, breed catalog, chats, orders, pets, service catalog, shifts, and messaging. No two tools could be confused for the same purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent camelCase verb_noun pattern (checkCoverage, createLead, createOrder, getBreeds, getChatMessages, etc.). The pattern is predictable and uniform across the entire set.
12 tools is well-scoped for a pet service booking assistant. Each tool covers a clear need without being excessive or sparse.
Core workflows are covered: coverage, ordering, pets, chat, and service catalog. Minor gaps exist like no update/cancel order or add/edit pet, but agents can work around these as the primary booking flow is complete.