vtex_get_brand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get brand details by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses (e.g., what happens if the brand ID doesn't exist), or data format of returned details. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get brand details by ID'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No extraneous words or redundant information are present.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'brand details' include (e.g., name, description, status), potential errors, or how results are structured. For a read operation without annotations, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'brandId' documented as 'Brand ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string ID) or where to find brand IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get brand details by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (brand details), specifying retrieval by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_brands' (which lists all brands) and 'create_brand'/'update_brand'/'delete_brand' (which modify brands). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'vtex_get_category' or other 'get_' tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'vtex_get_brand' over 'vtex_list_brands' (for a single brand vs. all brands) or other retrieval tools like 'vtex_get_product'. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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