vtex_get_product_and_sku_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no filters are applied. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The mention of 'useful for indexing' adds some context, but overall, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively without additional assumptions.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('categoryId' and 'brandId') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how filtering works or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Get all product and SKU IDs') and the resource, with a specific use case ('useful for indexing'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_get_product' or 'vtex_get_sku' by focusing on IDs rather than full details, but doesn't explicitly compare to 'vtex_list_products' or 'vtex_list_skus' which might overlap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vtex_list_products' or 'vtex_list_skus' is provided. The description mentions 'useful for indexing' which hints at a context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or clear alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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