Текущий адрес доставки

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return value shape (a label or street) and suggests a use case, which provides some transparency. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as behavior when no address is set, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description adds value but leaves gaps expected for a tool with no 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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then add a usage tip. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose language. This is exemplarily efficient.

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 parameterless getter, the description covers the return format and a typical use case. However, the absence of an output schema means the description should fully explain return values and edge cases. It does not mention what happens if no address is saved, or any prerequisites like login. Thus, while adequate for basic use, it has notable gaps.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The rubric states a baseline of 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there is nothing to document. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, so the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented params.

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 returns the current delivery address, with a specific example of the output format (label like 'Home' or street). It is not a tautology and uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('current delivery address'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_saved_addresses or set_address, so it lacks direct sibling distinction.

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 a clear use case: asking the user 'are we looking here?' before searching. This gives context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage scenario is clear. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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