wafle_stores_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by listing specific configuration fields returned and noting the tool is needed to obtain the current shape for delta updates. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the tool's role in an editing workflow.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and enumerates return contents, the second offers a concise usage guideline. Every sentence carries value; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned (full configuration with specific components) and why to use it (before editing settings to get the delta shape). This covers the essential context an agent needs, and the annotations cover safety.

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 fully describes the single 'slug' parameter with a pattern, length constraints, and example. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 fetches the full configuration of a single store, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('configuration of a single store'). It enumerates internal contents (payment gateway IDs, shipping methods, CBU/alias, social pixels, theme, abandoned-cart settings), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_stores_list or wafle_stores_settings_get.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use before editing settings — you need the current shape to send a delta.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives. Overall, the usage context is clear and actionable.

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