Lists SKUs whose days of cover meet or fall below lead time, helping identify items to reorder now and prioritize them by urgency.
List SKUs whose days of cover is at or below lead time (status reorder_now), sorted by urgency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max SKUs (default 50) | |
| leadTimeDays | No | Store-wide lead time days (default 21) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load: it does disclose the filter semantics and the urgency sort, which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about the shape of the returned rows, whether the list is exhaustive or truncated by limit, or whether 'urgency' is a stable sort key — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource, then the predicate, then the ordering — no filler and nothing buried. It reads as the ideal length for a two-parameter read tool.
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 simple, optional-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the deciding details (filter and sort). It stops short of describing what each returned SKU row contains or how the urgency ordering is computed, which would be the remaining useful addition.
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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining how leadTimeDays is consumed: it is the threshold compared against days of cover, not just a 'store-wide lead time'. The limit parameter and its default/500 cap are left entirely to the schema.
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 (List) and resource (SKUs) plus the exact filter predicate (days of cover <= lead time, status reorder_now) and ordering (by urgency). That is far more than a restatement of the name, but it never names or contrasts the sibling get_reorder_suggestion, which an agent may confuse with this tool.
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 filter condition implies when to reach for it (inventory triage / reorder situations), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance and no statement of when it is inappropriate. With a sibling named get_reorder_suggestion, the boundary between listing at-risk SKUs and getting a reorder suggestion is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.