jumbo_get_basket

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose read-only semantics, the exact fields surfaced, and the backing GraphQL operation. It omits environment facts an agent might need, such as session/auth requirements (jumbo_login exists as a sibling) or behavior on an empty basket.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the return contract and the exclusion list. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned shape (line fields plus subtotal), which is exactly what an agent needs for a zero-parameter read. Auth state and empty-basket/error behavior remain unstated, though complexity here is low.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to retrieve the current basket.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only view of the current Jumbo basket') and enumerates the payload (lines, quantity, unit price, line total, promotions, subtotal). This clearly separates it from the shopping-list, receipt, and store siblings, which operate on entirely different resources.

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?

Gives an explicit negative scope: 'No basket writes, no checkout, no order, no payment operations,' which tells the agent when not to expect mutation capability. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the write path (e.g., the add/remove shopping-list tools), so routing is informed but not fully directed.

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