inventory_statusLive inventory exploration for one or more catalog variants. Returns total quantity, available-for-sale state, warehouse-level quantities where available, and a plain-language fulfillment summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | Packrift SKU such as 1066. | |
| handle | No | Packrift product handle. | |
| quantity | No | ||
| variant_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the live nature of the data and the 'plain-language fulfillment summary' behavior. However, it doesn't disclose potential edge cases like what happens when inventory is unavailable or how the tool behaves with multiple variant_ids.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and output. Every word adds value, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 has no output schema and four optional parameters, but the description does not state that at least one identifier is required or how to choose among sku, handle, and variant_ids. It explains return values but not the invocation contract, making it incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 50% (sku and handle have descriptions; quantity and variant_ids do not). The description mentions 'one or more catalog variants' which partially relates to variant_ids, but it does not explain the role of 'quantity' or how the parameters interact. This is insufficient compensation for the missing parameter descriptions.
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's function: 'Live inventory exploration' with specific outputs (total quantity, available-for-sale state, warehouse-level quantities, fulfillment summary). The scope 'for one or more catalog variants' adds specificity, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_inventory'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another tool like 'check_inventory' would be more appropriate. The description implies general inventory exploration but lacks explicit usage direction.
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 overlapping purposes: check_inventory and inventory_status both focus on live stock, find_packaging_for_item and pack_calculator both handle dimension-based fitting, and create_cart_url, prepare_purchase_handoff, and get_cart_handoff_candidates all revolve around cart handoff. While descriptions add some clarity, an agent could easily select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_inventory, get_pricing, search_products), but inventory_status and pack_calculator are noun-based and break the convention. The naming is still predictable and readable overall.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, and the count feels slightly inflated due to overlapping inventory and cart-handoff tools. However, each tool has a defined purpose in the procurement workflow, so the count is not excessive.
The tool surface covers the full buyer journey: search, fit calculation, comparison, product detail, inventory check, pricing, cart creation, purchase handoff, shipping estimates, quotes, and reorder links. No critical dead ends were found.