sitebay_shopify_proxy

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 mentions that the tool proxies requests and returns a Shopify API response, but it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a proxy tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It uses bullet-like formatting under 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to scan. The sentences are direct and avoid unnecessary words, though it could be more front-loaded by emphasizing key constraints earlier.

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 complexity as a proxy with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for a tool of this nature.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes each parameter, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. For example, it explains 'path' as 'Shopify API path' with an example, and 'query_params_json' as 'Optional JSON string for payload or query params'. However, it doesn't provide detailed semantics like format constraints or usage examples for all parameters, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Proxy requests to a Shopify Admin API.' It specifies the verb ('proxy') and resource ('Shopify Admin API'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'sitebay_posthog_proxy' or 'sitebay_wordpress_proxy', which are also proxy tools but for different APIs, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 any prerequisites, such as authentication or setup requirements, nor does it compare it to other Shopify-related tools or general API tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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