sephora_view_basket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'view' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it requires an active session. The description provides basic functional information but lacks important behavioral 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the main action ('View the current contents') and then specifies what information is included. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional information about what the tool returns. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, session dependencies, or error handling that would be valuable for an agent. The absence of annotations means the description should compensate more for behavioral transparency.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'View the current contents of the Sephora shopping basket' with specific details about what information is included (items, quantities, prices, subtotal, estimated totals). It uses a specific verb ('view') and resource ('Sephora shopping basket'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sephora_checkout' which might also show basket contents.

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 when this tool should be used instead of other basket-related operations or what prerequisites might be needed (like having items in the basket). No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references are provided.

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