ops__oncall_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Draft' and 'propose' signal a non-committal, generated rotation rather than a final schedule, and the output content is stated. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or whether anything is actually written to the rota.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence clarifies the intended use without repeating the schema. It is efficient and scannable.

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 two-parameter tool, the schema covers the inputs and the description covers the output format (weekly shifts with the assigned person's email). No output schema exists, but an agent receives enough to invoke it correctly. It would benefit from stating what happens when no person is available, but that is a marginal gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with format constraints and examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that team and quarter are the scope, but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with the specific action 'Draft an on-call rotation' and immediately scopes it to 'one team and quarter.' It adds output detail—'one shift per week with the assigned person's email'—which makes the tool's purpose concrete. No sibling tool covers this domain, so it is distinguishable from the listed HR/finance tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use the tool 'to propose who is on call, week by week,' which establishes the primary use case. It also constrains use to a single team and quarter. There are no alternative on-call siblings, so no exclusion condition is needed.

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