List On Call Shadows

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the title: it does not mention pagination behavior, filtering, or what 'shadow shifts' include, despite exposing page_size and page_number parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the same brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 four-parameter list tool with 25% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema and annotations cover return values and safety respectively, but the description should still explain the optional include and pagination parameters and how this list differs from related shift-listing tools.

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 only 25%, with only schedule_id documented in the schema. The description mentions 'schedule' but adds no meaning for the three undocumented parameters (include, page_size, page_number), leaving their semantics entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List shadow shifts'. However, it does not distinguish this list operation from sibling tools such as get_schedule_shifts, list_shifts, or get_on_call_shadow, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 'for schedule' implies the tool requires a schedule context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. It does not explain why an agent should choose this over list_shifts or get_schedule_shifts.

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