vtex_get_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool in an e-commerce context, this leaves gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice, such as whether it returns real-time or cached data.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for quick understanding in a list of many tools.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'inventory information' entails (e.g., quantities, warehouse details), potential return formats, or error scenarios. For a tool with one parameter but unknown output structure, more context is needed to ensure the agent can interpret results correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'skuId' clearly documented as 'SKU ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('inventory information for a SKU'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'vtex_list_inventory_by_warehouse' by focusing on a single SKU rather than bulk listing. However, it doesn't specify what 'inventory information' includes (e.g., stock levels, locations), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'vtex_list_inventory_by_warehouse' for bulk data or 'vtex_get_sku' for SKU details without inventory. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal help for decision-making.

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