wafle_abandoned_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the data content (last activity, items, optional email captured before exit), which goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent an idea of what the response will contain.

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 two sentences: one defines the resource and contents, the other gives use cases. It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains no fluff, and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, and schema covers all parameters. The description gives the purpose and the data fields included, which is sufficient for an agent to select the tool. However, it does not mention pagination or response shape, but those are not critical given no output schema and standard list behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description (e.g., `with_email` states 'If true, only sessions where the user typed an email'). The description's mention of 'optional email captured before exit' adds a slight behavioral context, but mostly it aligns with the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List abandoned cart sessions.' It further specifies what this includes ('last activity, items, optional email'), and the phrasing clearly distinguishes this listing tool from the sibling `wafle_abandoned_send_recovery` by implying a listing/analysis purpose rather than an action tool.

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 second sentence explicitly gives use cases: 'Use to estimate recovery potential or to feed a manual outreach campaign.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative (e.g., `wafle_abandoned_send_recovery`).

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