list_picklistsWarehouse pick waves (draft → assigned → picking → completed), with line count, expected ship date, and whether a pick PDF exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (1-25, default 15). | |
| state | No | Filter by picklist state. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing the range of states covered and the returned fields (line count, ship date, PDF flag), but it doesn't disclose any edge cases, pagination behavior, or other side effects. Given the strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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, compact sentence that leads with the resource and packs in essential state and output details. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool is simple, with an output schema available and only two optional parameters. The description sufficiently covers the purpose, state filter values, and key output fields. It could have explicitly stated that it returns a list, but the tool name and pluralization make that apparent. Overall, it's complete for effective selection and invocation.
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 100%, but the description enriches the 'state' parameter by enumerating the allowed states (draft → assigned → picking → completed), which the schema does not provide. This helps the agent choose valid filter values. The 'limit' parameter remains fully defined by the schema.
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 tool name 'list_picklists' and title make the purpose clear. The description adds context by specifying the state progression (draft → assigned → picking → completed) and key output fields (line count, expected ship date, PDF existence). While it doesn't explicitly say 'returns a list of picklists', the name and context suffice, and it distinguishes from the singular sibling get_picklist.
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 for viewing pick waves and shows that the 'state' parameter filters by the listed states, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives like get_picklist for single-item details. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
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 target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.