Shift Summary

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about what the handover covers (acknowledged items, downtimes, notifications, open issues) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits or caveats beyond that.

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, front-loads the core purpose with a concrete metaphor ('handover'), and ends with practical usage prompts. Every sentence earns its place with 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, optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. No prerequisites or additional context seem 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'hours' parameter, including its range and meaning. The description only implies a time window ('last hours') and does not add any syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a shift handover/report aggregating recent problems, acknowledgements, downtimes, notifications, and open items. It is specific enough to stand apart from sibling tools like find_downtimes or explain_notification, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'what happened during the night shift' and 'give me a handover.' This tells an agent when to invoke it, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives.

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