Find common orders between two sets using primary keys, returning only those present in both. Reloads identified orders for this session.
intersect two Order sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the Order sets are 'reloaded for this session,' which hints at data freshness but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid keys, or what the return format is. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the operation. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it may be under-specified.
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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any edge cases. It does not mention the result of the intersection, so an agent cannot know what to expect. The 'reloaded for this session' note is the only extra context, but it does not complete the picture.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely refers to 'primary keys' to identify the Order sets. It does not explain the exact format of the strings, whether duplicates are handled, or how the arrays relate to the 'reloaded' behavior. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw parameter names.
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 operation (intersect), the resource (Order sets), and the key aspect that they are identified by primary keys. It distinguishes from sibling tools like union_order, subtract_order, and aggregate_order by naming the intersection operation specifically.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like union_order or subtract_order. It only states what it does, leaving the selection to the agent based on the operation name. No when-not-to-use conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.