get_checkout

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: auto-creation if none exists. With no annotations provided, this side-effect disclosure is crucial. However, it does not mention other behaviors like idempotency, error handling, or potential state changes.

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 sentence that fully conveys the purpose and key behavior. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. It explains the primary action and the unexpected auto-create side effect. However, it could hint at return type or error scenarios to be fully complete.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per rubric with high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('active smart checkout'), and distinguishes itself by noting the auto-creation behavior, which differentiates it from other getters among siblings like 'get_me'.

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?

While the description implies this is for retrieving the active checkout before performing operations (e.g., adding lines via 'add_checkout_lines'), it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives.

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