List the six condition-specific magnet guides with sample product images. Each guide is a strict-clean shortlist (eczema-safe personal care, clean shampoos AU, mineral-only sunscreens AU, pregnancy-safe beauty, fragrance-free essentials, snacks without artificial dyes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns six curated guides with sample images, which is transparent for a non-destructive, read-only operation. No hidden behaviors.
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 sentences, front-loads the main action, and uses concise, informative language with no wasted words.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the result set. Minor gap: does not clarify if sample images are real or placeholder, but this is not critical.
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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by specifying the exact content of the guides, which goes beyond the schema's null definition.
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 clearly states the tool lists six specific condition-based magnet guides with sample product images, and enumerates the conditions. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like get_catalog_stats or scan_barcode.
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 description implies usage when condition-specific product recommendations are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct function: catalog stats, magnet guide samples, URL templates, barcode scanning, and missing product submission. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_catalog_stats, get_magnet_samples, get_resources, scan_barcode, submit_missing_product.
5 tools are well-scoped for a scanner/indexing service. Each tool provides necessary functionality without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Covers core operations: scanning, submitting missing products, retrieving catalog info, and resources. Minor gap: no tool to update product data or manage conditions, but these are handled via parameters or external links.