w2w_get_shifts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait (automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days) but does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it returns all shifts for the current user, sorting, error handling, or rate limits. The pagination detail is a positive addition, but more context would be needed for full transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and it is easy to scan.

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 getter with no output schema and a fully described input schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail (pagination). It could mention scope (e.g., all shifts vs. user's shifts) but overall is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 100%, with all three parameters fully documented in the input schema. The description adds general context about date ranges and pagination but does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves assigned shifts from When2Work for a date range, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('shifts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming a unique resource type, and the date-range scope is explicit.

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 for fetching shift data over a specified date range and notes automatic pagination for long ranges, which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the distinct resource type makes the intended context clear.

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