vtex_list_skus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists SKUs, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON list). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a non-destructive action.

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 ('List SKUs, optionally filtered by product') that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key optional feature. There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, authentication needs, or return format. For a list operation, this leaves gaps in completeness, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates some concerns.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'productId' documented as 'Filter by Product ID.' The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by product,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('List SKUs') and resource ('SKUs'), with an optional filtering capability ('optionally filtered by product'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_get_sku' (singular retrieval) and 'vtex_list_products' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'vtex_list_inventory_by_warehouse' which might overlap in scope. This makes it specific but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'optionally filtered by product,' suggesting it's for listing SKUs with or without product-based filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'vtex_list_products' or 'vtex_get_sku_by_refid,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This provides some context but falls short of comprehensive usage instructions.

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