deputy_get_my_roster

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

The description discloses the default date range, UTC computation, ISO date format, output format behavior, timezone rendering, and the source-agnostic nature of the output (Deputy API or iCal feed). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations and actually enriches them with meaningful runtime behavior.

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 organized with clear sections: what it does, defaults/format, when not to use, and return behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, and the most critical purpose statement is front-loaded. It is detailed without being bloated.

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, read-only, all-optional-parameter tool with a full output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs: the resource, the scope, default behavior, alternatives, output format selection, timezone handling, and data source nuance. No critical context is missing.

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 already describes all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to re-document them. It adds value by explaining the default range when start_date/end_date are omitted, and by describing what response_format changes about the returned output. Baseline is 3; the added context justifies 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the signed-in user's own upcoming shifts in a date range.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from alternatives by naming deputy_get_team_roster and deputy_get_my_timesheets, and states what it does NOT return. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Explicit 'When NOT to use' guidance names the sibling tools and the exact conditions that route elsewhere: other people's shifts go to deputy_get_team_roster, worked time goes to deputy_get_my_timesheets. It also specifies default behavior when date parameters are omitted, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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