cart_view

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 reveals only that the cart is tied to the current server session, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or whether an active authenticated session is required before calling it.

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 extremely compact, with no filler words, and the session-scoping information is front and center. It is slightly too terse to be fully informative, but it is structured efficiently for a no-argument tool.

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 zero-parameter tool this is minimally functional: an agent can infer it is meant to view the current session's cart. However, the description does not explain the return value, what a successful call produces, or any session/auth prerequisite, so it is not 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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 names the resource explicitly: the current server session's cart ('Корзина текущей сессии сервера'). The tool name 'cart_view' supplies the view/get operation, so an agent can infer this is a read operation on the session cart. It is clear enough but lacks an explicit verb and does not itself differentiate from sibling cart tools beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cart_add or how it relates to auth/session tools. The description only names a resource and provides no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred conditions.

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