list_active_shifts

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

The annotations already convey read-only and open-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the permission requirement ('Requires EMPLOYEES_R') and the broad scope ('across all employees'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and clarifies authorization needs for the call.

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 compact and well-structured: two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the permission prerequisite in the second. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspects: what it returns (currently open shifts), the scope (all employees), and the required permission. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with the supporting annotations and siblings context.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. The 'across all employees' phrasing confirms the tool's implicit no-filter behavior, but this is not a parameter semantic.

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 the tool's function: 'Return currently open shifts (clocked in, not out) across all employees.' The verb 'Return' specifies a list operation, the resource 'open shifts' is defined precisely, and the scope 'across all employees' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_shifts, which likely lists all shifts.

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 provides clear context for use: it targets currently open shifts, which implies it is for real-time monitoring rather than historical review. It also mentions the permission requirement 'EMPLOYEES_R', giving a practical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative like list_shifts for non-active shifts, so it misses the explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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