View Basket

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 does describe the shape of the response, but that duplicates the output schema, and it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what happens with an empty basket, or whether the market must be selected first.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the returned fields follow. It is efficient, though so terse that it omits needed context rather than being optimally structured.

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?

The output schema covers the return-value question, and the description confirms the basket-content scope, so the core need is met for a simple read tool. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the agent still lacks the behavioral and scoping details required to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'market' parameter, which defaults to null. The phrase 'of a market' loosely ties the parameter to the basket's scope but does not explain the expected identifier form or what a null/omitted market means (e.g. current session market).

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?

Names the resource (the basket of a market) and its contents (lines with price, pickup/delivery availability, total), which is enough to separate it from the mutating siblings like add_to_basket, set_quantity, remove_from_basket and clear_basket. The read verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, so it stops short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as copy_basket or clear_basket. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read/inspect counterpart to the basket-mutation tools.

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