vtex_get_segment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements (despite an optional sessionToken parameter), rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words—and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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. It doesn't explain what 'segment data' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter but no structured context, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding its full usage and implications.

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 the optional sessionToken parameter. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying segment data retrieval, which aligns with the tool's purpose but doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'segment data', with specific examples (campaigns, UTM, location) that clarify scope. It distinguishes from siblings like vtex_get_product or vtex_get_order by focusing on segment data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like vtex_get_client_by_email.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), context for segment data retrieval, or comparisons to other get_* tools in the sibling list, leaving usage unclear.

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