list_shopping_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that checked-off rows remain until clear_shopping_list removes them, which is useful stateful behavior. It also explains the two row types. However, it doesn't mention whether the list is sorted, whether it returns only unchecked items or all items, or any read-only guarantee. The description adds some value but leaves notable behavioral 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and key behavioral nuance (checked-off rows persist). However, it doesn't describe the return format or whether the output includes all rows or only unchecked ones. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about what the response contains would make it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the output represents (what to buy, how much, checked-off status) and the distinction between catalog products and free-text notes. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 shows the shopping list and what it contains (what to buy, how much, checked-off status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_to_shopping_list, check_off_shopping_item, and clear_shopping_list by focusing on display/listing. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies this is the read/display tool for the shopping list, contrasting with mutation siblings like add_to_shopping_list and clear_shopping_list. It explains the two row types (catalog product vs free-text note) and checked-off behavior, which helps an agent know when to call it. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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