list_artisansList public artisan profiles connected to the visible Vaanzari catalogue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping ('public', 'visible catalogue') but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information: the action, the resource, and the scope. There is no filler or repetition.
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, read-only listing operation with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. Nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none.
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 ('List'), resource ('public artisan profiles'), and scope ('connected to the visible Vaanzari catalogue'). This clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like get_artisan and from unrelated listing tools like list_orders.
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?
Usage context is implied by the word 'List' and by the public-profile scope, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_artisan or search_sarees. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (cart, orders, tickets, picks, payments), so an agent can generally select the right one. The only notable ambiguity is resume_payment vs retry_payment, which both describe acting on an unpaid hosted payment attempt with nearly identical wording.
All 29 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun (or verb_preposition_noun) pattern with standard verbs like get, list, create, close, remove, and set. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic names.
At 29 tools this is a heavy surface, but the broad e-commerce scope (catalog, cart, checkout, payment, orders, support, rewards) justifies most of them. A few payment-attempt tools could be consolidated, so it sits at the overbuilt rather than absurdly bloated end.
The set covers the main customer journey from browsing/searching sarees through cart, checkout, payment status, orders, and post-purchase support. Minor gaps exist—for example, no explicit apply_coupon/redeem_points tool or standalone catalogue listing—but agents can work around them with validate_coupon, checkout summary, and search.