get_productFixture-backed UCP Catalog product detail alias with Commonlands optical metadata and Shopify-native handoff fields. Product optical fields are not a substitute for sensor-specific FoV; call calculate_field_of_view for the lens/sensor pair. FoV rule: never estimate sensor-specific FoV from catalog fields; use calculate_field_of_view or match_lens_to_sensor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | No | ||
| catalog | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context by stating it is fixture-backed and provides optical metadata, and warns against misusing for sensor-specific FoV. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, each sentence adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary information.
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?
Good annotations and usage guidance cover safety and selectivity. However, missing parameter descriptions and no output schema mean the agent may lack full context on response format and how to use meta/catalog. Still adequate for a read tool with clear 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 description does not mention any parameters (meta, catalog). While the schema defines structure, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with required nested parameters, this is a significant gap.
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?
Description specifies it retrieves 'Fixture-backed UCP Catalog product detail alias' with optical metadata and Shopify handoff fields. It distinguishes from calculate_field_of_view and match_lens_to_sensor by explicitly stating it is not for sensor-specific FoV.
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?
Explicitly states when not to use this tool for FoV estimation and directs to alternatives: 'call calculate_field_of_view for the lens/sensor pair' and 'use calculate_field_of_view or match_lens_to_sensor'. Provides clear context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have significant overlap in purpose and trigger keywords. calculate_field_of_view, match_lens_to_sensor, and get_lens_distortion_profile all share nearly identical use-case descriptions for FOV/sensor requests, while search_catalog, search_lens_catalog, and lookup_catalog all provide search/lookup functionality with subtle differences that are easy to confuse.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., calculate_field_of_view, create_cart, get_product, read_shopify_products, submit_rfq). No mixing of styles or unpredictable naming conventions.
With 21 tools, the surface is noticeably heavy for a lens finder and FOV calculator, especially when several tools serve status/config purposes (get_catalog_snapshot_status, get_shopify_readonly_config_status, get_shopify_ucp_readiness). It sits in the 'feels heavy' range from the rubric.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: catalog search, product details, sensor specs, FOV calculation, lens matching, distortion profiles, Shopify carts, purchase handoff, and RFQ submission. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_cart or bulk sensor listing), but core workflows are well-supported.