wingstop_flavors

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 does disclose key behavioral details: it returns the full catalog, includes retired flavors (is_active false), and lists the fields (heat scale, dry/wet, badges). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, though that is implied. It also does not mention any potential side effects, pagination, or response format, but given the simplicity of a catalog getter, this is adequate. The description adds value beyond the (empty) schema by explaining the scope and inclusion of retired flavors.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second enumerates the returned fields concisely. Every clause adds value, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 simple catalog getter with no parameters, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns (all flavor details, heat scale, dry/wet, badges, and retired flavors) and explicitly notes the inclusion of retired items. There is no output schema, so the description adequately covers the response shape. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call this tool 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 schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description focuses on the return value, which is sufficient.

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 purpose: 'Get Wingstop's flavor catalog.' It specifies the resource (Wingstop flavors) and the action (get), and details the exact fields returned (name, description, image, heat scale, dry/wet, badges). This distinguishes it from siblings like wingstop_menu, which would return menu items rather than the flavor catalog.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for flavors specifically versus menu items, nor does it indicate when it should be preferred over sibling tools like wingstop_menu or wingstop_store. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, with no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.