next_shift

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the ISO date format and the search range parameter. However, it does not specify what happens if no shift is found, how multiple potential results are handled (e.g., returns only one), or error conditions. This leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.

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 three parameters, none required, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. An output schema exists, but the description does not explain default behavior (e.g., what does 'after' default to null? do we need to pass current time?). The agent lacks sufficient detail to reliably use the tool without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It explains 'after' as an ISO date/datetime and 'days' as the search horizon. However, the 'calendar' parameter is entirely unexplained, and the default behavior of 'after' when null is not clarified. Only partial parameter coverage.

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 action 'Return the next shift', specifies the input as 'ISO date/datetime', and defines the search scope 'up to days ahead'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'current_shift' or 'shifts_on_date'.

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 finding the next shift after a given date, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upcoming_shifts' or 'free_days'. No exclusions or context for selection are mentioned.

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