get_featured_items

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 retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness (e.g., how 'current' is defined). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current featured, seasonal, or limited-time menu items') and specifies the context ('at Shake Shack'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 covers the what and where but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, error cases, or freshness guarantees. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'Get' returns would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for a basic read operation.

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 the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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: 'Get current featured, seasonal, or limited-time menu items at Shake Shack.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('featured, seasonal, or limited-time menu items'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_menu' (general menu) and 'search_menu' (searchable menu). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_menu' beyond implying a subset focus.

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 'featured, seasonal, or limited-time' items, suggesting this tool is for promotional or time-sensitive content rather than the full menu. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_menu' or 'search_menu' (e.g., no 'when-not' statements or named alternatives), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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