passgage_list_shift_settings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic list functionality and optional filtering/pagination, but omits details like whether results are read-only, default ordering, response structure, or any side effects. Since filtering is Ransack-style, some syntax is in the schema, but the description adds no additional behavioral context.

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, efficiently front-loaded sentence that states the core action and key options. It contains no filler or redundant content, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 has nested filter objects, variable pagination, and no output schema, the description is notably underspecified. It does not explain what fields shift_settings contain, how filters should be structured (beyond schema), or what the response shape is. For a parameterized list tool, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'optional filtering and pagination' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The Ransack-style filter example is already present in the schema, so no compensation is needed.

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 tool lists shift_settings, which identifies the specific resource and action. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_shift_setting (singular) and create/update/delete variants, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_shift_setting should be used for a single record, nor clarify any prerequisites or conditions. No exclusions or alternatives are noted.

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