Содержимое корзины

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds contextual behavior beyond that: it discloses that each line prints trend-only countAvailable and explains the CART_QUANTITY_CONFLICT block and the instruction to resolve discrepancies. This is honest and informative.

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 two sentences with no filler. It quickly introduces the purpose, then explains the provenance requirement and the conflicting scenario. Every sentence adds value and key constraints are mentioned up front.

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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it defines the parameters, their sources, the expected output, and a conflict condition. Slight missing details like empty-cart behavior or response format are compensated by the existing output schema annotation.

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?

Input schema has two parameters with no description coverage, but the description significantly enriches them. It says both are mandatory, sourced from grocery_stores(), and must match the ones used in grocery_add_to_cart. That covers the essential semantic meaning the schema lacks.

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?

Description clearly states that the tool shows cart contents and prints per-item availability counts. It also references grocery_add_to_cart to define the required parameter context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from other cart-related siblings like grocery_set_cart or grocery_checkout, which leaves some room for ambiguity.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: app_id/point_id must come from grocery_stores() and match those used in grocery_add_to_cart. That is valuable usage guidance. But it does not say when this tool should be chosen instead of checking the cart elsewhere, or when it should be avoided.

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