view_current_cart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'View'), has a specific data scope (local tracking only), and returns a dictionary with items and summary. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, performance, or data freshness, leaving some gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a critical note on limitations, and a clear returns section. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, its limitations, and return format. However, without an output schema, more detail on the dictionary structure (e.g., keys, data types) could enhance completeness, though the summary suffices for basic use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value elsewhere without redundancy.

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 specific action ('View') and resource ('current cart contents tracked locally'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_items_to_cart' or 'remove_from_cart'. It explicitly notes the limitation to items added via the MCP server, which further clarifies its scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it states 'This tool can only see items that were added via this MCP server' and contrasts with the Kroger API's inability to query actual user cart contents. This clearly defines its use case and limitations compared to external systems.

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