passgage_get_shift_setting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not describe what is returned, potential errors (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a read tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and full schema coverage, the description is almost adequate. However, with no output schema, the description should clarify what the result looks like (e.g., the full shift_setting object) and possibly any error conditions. This missing return value documentation leaves a gap.

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 covers the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('The UUID of the shift_setting to retrieve'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely restates 'by ID' without adding extra meaning beyond the schema, which keeps it at the baseline.

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 'Get a specific shift_setting by ID' clearly states a specific verb (get), resource (shift_setting), and scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_shift_settings, create_shift_setting, update_shift_setting, and delete_shift_setting.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: an agent can infer to use this when it has a shift_setting ID and needs details, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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