bar_get_shelf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a retrieval of the user's shelf, but says nothing about read-only safety, default user scoping, empty-shelf behavior, or ordering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core purpose is covered. However, the undocumented user_id default leaves a real gap in how an agent should invoke it, which a single clause could have closed.

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?

There is one parameter (user_id, default 1) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or what omitting it means. The default-1 behavior is a genuine semantic risk that neither the schema nor the description explains.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get ingredients ... on the user's shelf') and clarifies the meaning of 'shelf' with '(what they have available)'. It implicitly contrasts with shelf mutators like bar_add_to_shelf/bar_remove_from_shelf by using 'get', but never names a sibling or scoping rule explicitly.

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 parenthetical hints at when this is useful (checking available ingredients, e.g. before bar_makeable_cocktails), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison to alternatives like bar_get_shopping_list or bar_search_ingredients. Usage is left to inference.

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