toast_get_active_shifts

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a non-mutating snapshot of clocked-in shifts, but it does not disclose pagination, response contents, or whether an omitted restaurantGuid scopes the result to all accessible restaurants.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read-only list with no required parameters, the description is minimally viable: an agent can select and invoke it with no arguments. However, without an output schema or parameter guidance, it is not fully complete for agents that need to know the result shape or scoping behavior.

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 0% and the description never mentions restaurantGuid, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. The optionality of the single parameter softens the impact, but the agent is left to infer how restaurant filtering behaves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('currently active/clocked-in shifts'), and the active/clocked-in qualification distinguishes this tool from siblings like toast_list_shifts and toast_get_shift. The scope is immediately clear even without a title.

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 phrase 'currently active/clocked-in' provides clear context: use this tool when you need live, in-progress shifts rather than historical or scheduled ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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