toast_get_shift

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 states it 'gets' data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly address side effects, authorization requirements, or any other behavioral aspects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise in length but not in content, as it does not provide enough information to be genuinely useful. The brevity is acceptable, but it fails to leverage the concise form to convey meaningful guidance.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, the description is grossly incomplete. It gives no indication of the return format, required parameter formats, error handling, or any contextual details that would help an agent use it successfully. The description offers only the minimal essence of the tool's purpose.

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 both parameters (shiftGuid, restaurantGuid) have empty descriptions. The tool description makes no mention of what these parameters represent or how they should be used, leaving the agent to infer everything from parameter names alone. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('get') and a specific resource ('details about a specific shift'), effectively distinguishing it from list-shifts and active-shifts siblings. However, it lacks specifics on what 'detailed information' includes, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toast_list_shifts' or 'toast_get_active_shifts'. The description is purely declarative about what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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