list_shifts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the EMPLOYEES_R permission requirement and the critical behavior that omitting employee_id aggregates shifts across all employees, going beyond the annotation baseline.

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 with information front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: the core action, optional filters, permission requirement, and aggregation behavior. There is no redundancy.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential behavior and a key aggregation caveat. It lacks date format details and sibling differentiation, but is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 maps 'by employee and/or date window' to employee_id, date_from, and date_to, but does not define date formats or inclusivity, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with 'List shifts,' providing a specific verb and resource. It further specifies optional filtering by employee and date window, and the sibling tool list_active_shifts makes it clear this covers all shifts, not just active ones.

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 implies usage contexts with 'Requires EMPLOYEES_R' and the aggregation note, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like list_active_shifts. The when-to-use is inferred rather than stated.

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