instacart_view_cart

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 mentions what data is returned ('items, quantities, and totals') but does not address other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by sibling tools like 'instacart_login'), rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires an active session. This leaves significant gaps for a tool in a context with authentication-related siblings.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('View current Instacart cart contents') and adds necessary specifics ('including items, quantities, and totals') concisely.

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) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It does not address contextual needs like authentication (implied by sibling tools) or error handling, which are important in this server's context. The description is complete enough for a read-only view tool but misses broader integration aspects.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied as it effectively handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary detail.

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 specific verb ('View') and resource ('current Instacart cart contents'), with explicit details about what is included ('items, quantities, and totals'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'instacart_add_to_cart' or 'instacart_clear_cart' by focusing on read-only viewing rather than modification.

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 context by specifying 'current Instacart cart contents,' suggesting it should be used to check cart status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'instacart_preview_order' for order details or 'instacart_status' for general status), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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