list_warehouse_pickings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination, search via 'q', and include relations, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or default behavior when no parameters are provided. The 'Paginated' note is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise: one line for purpose, then bulleted AI notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 output schema existence and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, pagination, search, and relations. It could be improved by noting the response structure or expected behavior with multiple filters, but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces type codes (1-4) and the use of 'q' for search, adding marginal value. However, it does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists warehouse picking documents, with specific types (nhập/xuất/chuyển kho). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by its focus on pickings and includes details like type codes and search capabilities.

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 useful notes for AI (type meanings, search field, include relations) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_warehouses or search_all_warehouse_pickings. Usage context is implied but not definitive.

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