list_oncalls

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

Annotations already declare readonly and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the resolution of service_ids to escalation policies and the default behavior of 'earliest' being True.

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 structured docstring with Args and Returns sections, concise but covering all parameters. It could be slightly tighter, but it's well-organized.

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?

With 9 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential context. It explains parameter behavior and return type, though pagination or limit behavior could be more explicit.

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 lists all parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema schema itself, especially for service_ids which includes resolution logic.

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 lists on-call schedules with optional filtering, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_escalation_policies or list_schedules, missing some differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_escalation_policies or list_schedules. The description only says 'with optional filtering,' which implies usage but does not state exclusions or conditions.

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