get_shift_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when no policy exists.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple lookup tool. It could be marginally more helpful with a few words clarifying the resource boundary, but it is not bloated.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description identifies the resource and subject but does not describe the policy contents or return shape. With no annotations or output schema to fill those gaps, the definition is only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100%; the sole parameter (forDate) is fully documented in the schema, including its default of today. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific resource ('Shift policy') and scope ('signed-in employee'), which distinguishes it from generic policy siblings such as get_attendance_policy or get_expense_policy. However, it does not clarify the boundary with get_shift_details or explicitly identify itself as a read-only lookup.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_shift_details, nor are any prerequisites mentioned. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the short noun phrase.

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