get_mylist_parts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by contrasting 'compact' (bounded, default) with 'full' (raw DigiKey shape), but 'bounded' remains vague and does not explain pagination, auth needs, or response structure beyond this hint.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately brief, though the term 'bounded' is imprecise and could be clearer. Overall, it is compact without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'bounded' means, what the compact vs. full responses contain, or how parameters like include_images and substitution_limit affect results. The description leaves too much to be inferred.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the response_detail parameter via the compact/full distinction. Nine other parameters (e.g., include_substitutions, substitution_limit, account_id) receive no explanatory context. This is insufficient given the parameter count and lack of schema 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 'Get every MyList part,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_mylist by focusing on the parts within a list. The compact/full detail adds further specificity about the response format.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the usage context entirely implied by the name. This is a clear gap for a tool with many sibling list/part tools.

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