deputy_next_shift

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: ambiguous-name handling, markdown vs. json return semantics, the 'none scheduled' note, and the iCal-mode auth limitation. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses clear sections for usage and exclusions. Each sentence delivers distinct information—scope, edge cases, alternatives, and output behavior—with no wasted words.

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 has only two optional parameters and a read-only annotation. The description covers the essential usage scenarios, output formats, failure modes, and auth caveats. An output schema exists, so return value structure is already handled, making this complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that a name must resolve to exactly one active person, that matches are listed for retry by id, and that json returns a single Roster record or null. This justifies a 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: 'Return the single next upcoming shift for an employee (name or id).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it returns only the earliest one, contrasting with deputy_get_my_roster and deputy_search_shifts for full ranges.

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?

There is an explicit 'When NOT to use' section naming alternatives (deputy_get_my_roster, deputy_search_shifts) and the condition that selects this tool. It also gives guidance on omitting 'employee' for your own shift and handling ambiguous names, leaving no inference burden on the agent.

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