Get shifts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Body fields: none' and the HTTP GET method, but does not disclose pagination, response shape, or other behavioral details; this is acceptable but not additive enough for a higher score.

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 compact and front-loads the endpoint and key constraints, with a reference URL for details. The opening 'Get shifts' repeats the title, so it is not perfectly economical, but the overall structure wastes little space.

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?

The endpoint, body note, and reference are sufficient to make the call, and the schema covers query parameters. However, there is no output description and no disambiguation among the many sibling shift tools, so an agent may need extra effort to decide this is the right tool.

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 endpoint makes the required groupID path parameter explicit and 'Body fields: none' clarifies there is no request body, but query parameters are only documented in the schema rather than the description. With 50% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for parameter semantics.

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 names the operation ('Get shifts') and supplies the exact endpoint 'GET /api/xm/1/groups/{groupID}/shifts', making clear it retrieves shift collections for a group. The plural 'shifts' and the groupID path segment differentiate it from singular shift tools, though it does not explicitly call out those siblings.

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 such as xmatters_get_a_shift or xmatters_get_members_in_a_shift. The endpoint and reference imply the resource scope, but the description does not state when to choose this over sibling shift-related tools.

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