vtex_list_brands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List all brands' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, sorting, or what 'all' entails (e.g., active only, includes archived). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 'List all brands' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb and resource.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about behavior, output format, or usage guidelines. For a list operation, more details on pagination or scope would improve completeness, but the basic purpose is covered.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 'List all brands' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('brands'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like vtex_get_brand (singular retrieval) and vtex_create_brand/update_brand/delete_brand (mutations), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 scenarios like retrieving all brands for browsing versus using vtex_get_brand for a specific brand, or when filtering might be needed. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, 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.