Lire le panier Greenweez

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context beyond annotations by noting it reads the cart of the connected account and excludes sensitive data, which is genuinely useful for agents deciding whether this action touches protected resources. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single, tight French sentence that conveys the purpose and scope exclusions. Zero wasted words, no redundancy with the schema or annotations. Efficient 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?

For a simple no-parameter read tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination, but with no output schema and simple semantics, this is less critical. It's complete enough for an agent to safely select and invoke.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent any parameter details. Nothing more is needed here.

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 states a clear verb+resource: it 'relit' (re-reads) the real cart of the connected account. It adds useful scope clarification by explicitly stating it does NOT ask for addresses, payments, or profile data, which distinguishes it from broader account-reading tools. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the cart sibling tools (preview_remove_from_cart, etc.) which are about modification rather than reading.

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 clarifies what data is excluded (addresses, payments, profile) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. Among siblings, the closest ambiguity is with get_product/search_products (catalog reads), but that distinction is implied by context rather than stated. No explicit when-not guidance or alternative naming.

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